Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2006
Publication Information
80 St. John's L. Rev. 923 (2006)
Abstract
If eminent domain is to serve true community development, statutory reforms must limit its propensity to abuse while still preserving its effectiveness. The first part of this article offers a normative legal theory of eminent domain as constrained by both the availability of alternative means of achieving public objectives and the inability of some condemnees to be made whole by cash compensation. The consideration of the land needs of both the condemnor and the condemnee is crucial to the respective evaluations of public use and just compensation as limitations on eminent domain. In the context of urban redevelopment, the theory supports greater resident autonomy in the compulsory assembly of residential land to subsidize and induce private economic development. The article's second part articulates two legislative reforms that protect residents from unjustified, irreparable harm without depriving urban redevelopment of eminent domain's essential efficacy in coordinating investment.
Specifically, homeowners should not be subject to eminent domain pursuant to a redevelopment plan until the majority of them have approved the plan. To further solidify resident ownership of redevelopment, the right to continued residency in the community should be protected by amending relocation laws to guarantee an alienable entitlement to be offered replacement housing in the redeveloped district area. Together, these two legislative reforms express a more nuanced balance of property and liability rules that will facilitate a more productive interface between community residents and redevelopment officials.
Recommended Citation
James J. Kelly,
"We Shall Not Be Moved": Urban Communities, Eminent Domain and the Socioeconomics of Just Compensation,
80 St. John's L. Rev. 923 (2006).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/833
Comments
Reprinted with permission of St. John's Law Review.