Eminent domain is government defending plunder and participating in it
It's not an innocent tool, it's a monstrous practice.
Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame and danger that their acts would otherwise involve… But how is this legal plunder to be identified?
Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to the other persons to whom it doesn’t belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
Then abolish that law without delay. No legal plunder; this is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic.
—Frédéric Bastiat
Planners and engineers describe eminent domain as just another tool available for important infrastructure projects. American Planning Association’s website has hundreds of case studies, webinars, and other resources to educate and guide the modern professional through the process of taking private property by force.
Governments of all sizes have left a trail of injustice and despair in their expansion efforts “for the greater good.” Before it was called “eminent domain,” citizens referred to it as empire building, oppression, thievery, and cronyism. I think I like the plain language terms better. Please don’t confuse this with property owners agreeing on their own terms to sell their land to government agencies. Eminent domain involves negotiations, but it is not a negotiable process. The development plans don’t include a “no thanks” option.
This isn’t new. When you read 18th century history, you’d think Americans would be the last people to fool around with forceful seizures. In the years leading up to the American Revolution, the British Empire shamelessly seized land from private citizens and bestowed it upon their favored cronies in the name of economic development.
The Empire's voracious appetite knew no bounds as they took what they wanted, whenever it served their purposes. During the heated debates of the Constitutional Convention, the abuse of eminent domain was a topic of grave concern. James Madison proposed the protection of property rights in what eventually became the Fifth Amendment.
But power has a funny way of changing people. It didn't take long before the American government succumbed to the same temptations of power. Eminent domain is a chilling reminder that no individual or family is safe when the state wields power to remove you or your property by force.
The phrase “property rights” is often assigned either a libertarian or a right-of-center political label. It’s easy to find dozens of articles and op-eds scoffing at property rights advocates as self-centered and heartless, worried only about their own stuff and uninterested in sharing. But property rights are fundamental to a free society. You can’t build wealth if nothing belongs to you.
When I have the occasional Twitter outburst against eminent domain, a predictable flurry of “but it’s complicated” and “but how will we expand the roads” tweets come at me. On those common points,
Eminent domain is not at all complicated. It’s taking private property by force.
Road expansions are a terrific example of what’s wrong with eminent domain.
Don’t sugarcoat eminent domain. The forceful taking of private property is a monstrous practice, and it should be dealt with as such.
Detroit vs. People of Detroit
In 1981, the City of Detroit announced it and General Motors had forged an alliance to establish a new automobile assembly plant. They had selected the Poletown neighborhood as the site for this venture.
Poletown was a predominantly working-class community with a strong sense of identity and history. The residents weren’t having it, so the government determined that eminent domain was their best strategy to streamline the GM plant. The case ended up in the Michigan Supreme Court, who sided with Big Auto. In 1983, Detroit forcibly evicted over 4,000 residents, demolished over 1,000 homes, several churches, and numerous small businesses. The plant opened in 1984.
Detroit’s leaders devastated an entire neighborhood because they were enticed by the promise of big corporate riches spilling out from a GM plant. The consequences of this mass displacement were profound. The neighborhood was left in ruins. The population of Poletown plummeted as families were uprooted from their homes, eroding the social fabric of the area.
The cornerstone of the project was the pledge of economic revitalization and job creation. The grand plans failed to materialize, leaving the dispossessed residents bitter and disillusioned. The economic fallout was significant. The center of community life transformed into a desolate landscape of empty lots and abandoned dreams.
The impacts of the Poletown displacement reverberate to this day. The loss can’t be quantified merely in terms of physical destruction. The human toll, the shattered hopes, the depression, and the deep-rooted resentment experienced by the affected residents are immeasurable. In spite of all this, authorities continue using eminent domain.
NYC vs. People of NYC
In 2003, the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) announced plans to develop a major mixed-use project in Atlantic Yards, Brooklyn. The ambitious endeavor aimed to reshape a significant portion of the borough, with a magnificent sports arena for the NBA's Brooklyn Nets at its core. The cost of this transformation was staggering, but the City was not about to let an NBA-related development deal slip through its fingers.
Promises of a brighter future echoed through the streets. The ESDC pledged the creation of 2,250 units of affordable housing, raising hopes for those in search of a place to call home in an increasingly unaffordable city. Leaders boasted the potential to generate a whopping 15,000 jobs, and let’s face it, people love to cheer for new jobs.
The City started buying up properties. But not everyone was interested in moving out of the neighborhood, so eminent domain went into practice in 2003. Some fought back, and in 2004, the New York Supreme Court ruled that it was fine to keep taking property by force. “Greater good” for the win. In 2006, the City demolished hundreds of homes and businesses.
As time unraveled the truth, the projections proved to be overhyped. The grand vision of affordable housing crumbled, with less than 10% of the promised actually materializing. The dreams of many aspiring residents were shattered, as the hope for a more affordable and inclusive Brooklyn faded. The actual number of new jobs was nowhere near the estimated 15,000, leaving many struggling to find stable employment in the wake of their forced displacement.
The Barclays Center, the centerpiece of the Atlantic Yards project, opened in 2012. Other than some old blogs and an emotional documentary, there was no sustained outrage. In spite of all this, authorities continue using eminent domain.
New London vs. People of New London
In 1998, the City of New London, Connecticut, approved a plan to use eminent domain to seize private property for a private development project for Pfizer. Yes, Pfizer, that behemoth in a trillion dollar pharmaceutical industry that makes billions in profit every year.
New London became a disturbing display of abuse, as powerful forces conspired to uproot and displace working-class homeowners in the name of economic development. One such homeowner was Susette Kelo, whose fight against the seizure of her beloved home would later become a symbol of resistance against corporate power. She spent over $300,000 in legal fees, a staggering amount for an individual pitted against the vast resources of the government and powerful corporations.
The case of Kelo v. City of New London garnered attention not only for its profound impact on individual lives but also for the staggering numbers that unfolded throughout the legal battle. Over 100 properties were targeted for acquisition, and the City displaced around 70 families from their homes.
Kelo's struggle became the subject of the acclaimed film "Little Pink House," shedding light on the dark underbelly of eminent domain abuse and the callousness with which corporate interests can trample over private property rights.
The case revealed a systemic flaw in the balance of power in 2005, as the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the City, cementing a precedent that allowed for the abuse of eminent domain to serve private corporate interests under the guise of "economic development."
And then Pfizer changed its mind and abandoned the project. The promised economic benefits and development that had been used as justification for the forced evictions never materialized, leaving a once-thriving community in ruins and its residents disillusioned.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." The Court's decision today effectively allows the government to take private property for any use whatsoever, so long as the government can claim that the taking will increase economic development. This is a radical departure from our property law tradition. Dissenting Opinion by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas.
Empire vs. You
The Kelo case shocked a whole bunch of states into reforming their constitutions after seeing the trauma unleashed by eminent domain in Connecticut. It’s true that many states now give a more critical examination of eminent domain practices.
Today, public agencies are supposed to use eminent domain for genuine public uses, such as infrastructure projects, rather than for the benefit of private entities. As if infrastructure projects don’t destroy families and local economies.
In a nation founded on the principles of individual liberty and property rights, the grotesque abuse of eminent domain remains. Why? Because powerful people crave more power.
The stories of Poletown, Atlantic Yards, and Kelo are just a drop in the bucket. The collusion between government entities and corporate giants persists, and eminent domain is an important tool for those craftsmen of cronyism.
Bastiat was right: abolish eminent domain.