Clarifying My Stance on Eminent Domain

Eminent domain has been in the new a lot in the last year or so, after
the landmark Kelo v. New London case, which created a precedent for
using eminent domain for private economic development (as opposed to a
more directly public use, like building a highway or removing an
eyesore). States have responded to Kelo by voting to place severe
restrictions on the use of eminent domain, lest localities abuse its
use.

When too many people get riled up about something, I start looking for
the wisdom in the contrarian position. And this one was no different.
I felt the anti-Kelo people were going too far in their vilification
of eminent domain. Sure, it is a scary thing to think that the
government can take your property. But you can play that up in an
irrational way. And without eminent domain, good development can be
hard to do, especially in urban areas where ownership is fragmented
and therefore good-sized projects are tricky to assemble the land for.
So when I hear people getting all frothy about how awful eminent
domain is, I start to bristle up a little; when I hear people talk
about how the government is going to bulldoze your house tomorrow, I
start to roll my eyes.

But let me offer a counterbalance to my counterbalance. Yes, eminent
domain needs to be preserved as a tool for cities and developers to
use, albeit carefully and sensitively. What does need to be checked
is the use of eminent domain as a pure, "kick the poor out and build
stuff for the rich" land grab. This is what appears to be happening
in Camden, a notoriously poor and crime-ridden city across the river
from Philadelphia. The city and developers want to take a mostly
residential, predominantly non-vacant neighborhood and transform it
into a mixed-use development of condos, entertainment, and high-end
retail.

This might pass the Kelo test as set by the Supreme Court, in that the
tax revenues generated from such uses would most likely be higher than
those that are currently being generated, and therefore a public
benefit is being derived from the taking. But is that what this tool
called eminent domain was intended for? In our country's delicate
balance between personal property and greater good, we must protect
individuals' possessions as well as work towards common gains.
Grabbing the homes of one, poorer group of people to provide land and
buildings for another, richer group of people can't be a good use of
this tool.

Let's not get all hot and bothered about eminent domain per se, for it
ought to be preserved as an important tool in the arsenal of cities
seeking to rebound and grow. But let's also not then pave the way for
uses of this tool that are improper and unjust.