Tang 1

Jessica Tang
Ms. Gardner
English 10 Period 4
10 May 2015
The Problem of Eminent Domain
Stemming from the core values that it was built on, America seems like the kind of place
where you earn what you keep, and you keep what you earn. This is not entirely true. Thanks to
the law of eminent domain, the government is free to take away private property as long as it is
for public use and proper compensation is paid. At first glance, this law might seem reasonable;
however, in practice, it is far from it. It is a violation of rights that displaces thousands of people
for an oft not-guaranteed and decidedly private gain, and so, the practice of eminent domain
must cease.
Arguably, eminent domain is used for the benefit of the people. Dennis Cauchon, reporter
for the USA Today, writes, Government at all levels has long used eminent domain to acquire
land to build roads, schools, parks, hospitals and other projects of public benefit. Proponents
also argue that eminent domain can be used to prevent foreclosure by seizing private properties
before they go entirely underwater (Rogers). However, the use of eminent domain has begun to
step out of bounds: it is used to seize private property for private companies to develop, since the
tax revenue arguably will benefit the city and state more than a neighborhood would. But this

Tang 2
argument places the economic expansion of private not public corporations above the
rights of the people to their houses and homes. Perhaps if this tactic truly benefited the people, it
would have a stronger argument in its favor, but as is, there are a few important reasons why it
does not.
First of all, the definition of proper compensation is subjective and not always fulfilled.
A private propertys perceived value may vary greatly between the owner of said property and
the government. In addition, the compensation does not always account for the economic
opportunity that is being taken away. The private company who will own the land stands to gain
much more than the homeowner does, because they will make a profit whereas the private owner
will not. States also often use a system of before and after to determine just compensation:
the value of the land before changes are enacted is subtracted from the value of the land after
changes are enacted, and the difference is paid to the landowner (Denton). In New York, for
example, oil pipeline companies wished to lay down oil pipes on farms; for the farmers, this was
a terrible double standard. The farmers could still farm the land before and after the oil pipelines
were laid, so the difference in the value of the land was very little; as such, they received little
compensation, even as the oil companies enjoyed their economic windfall. One farmer in
particular was offered $5 per linear foot, for a total of about $6000. Since territories who were
legally immune to eminent domain were charging rent for the laying of these oil pipelines, the
farmer offered a similar deal. The oil company invoked eminent domain and lowered its offer to

Tang 3
$1000 per acre, for a total of about $830. Legally, once eminent domain was invoked, there was
very little the farmer could do (Denton). Just in this recent year, an oil company surveyed
homeowner Charlotte Reas land because it laid along a proposed oil pipeline route. She was
threatened with eminent domain if she did not cooperate. Rea reported, It's a violation. It's a
desecration. It makes you feel totally powerless (Greenberg). Property owners lose their ability
to negotiate for their rights and the value of their land. In addition, thanks to the before and
after rule, property owners do not even always receive the market price for their land. However,
Todd Zywicki, professor of law at George Mason University, points out that cities and states are
willing to run the risk that people will be under-compensated for the sake of necessary public
uses (Campbell).
What exactly, then, constitutes a necessary public use? In recent years, the definition has
consistently been stretched to grant more rights to cities, including the ability to take private land
for private development something that many people objected to strenuously. Most famous is
the case of Kelo vs. the city of New London, Connecticut. After officials announced plans to raze
down a neighborhood to make room for other businesses, including a waterfront hotel, a health
club, and several offices, Susette Kelo and several other homeowners filed a lawsuit, arguing that
taking private property to sell to private developers was not public use. The city, on the other
hand, claimed that developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues (KELO v.
CITY OF NEW LONDON). In previous years, eminent domain had been used only to seize

Tang 4
clearly blighted or dilapidated, but Kelo and her neighbors pointed out that their homes were far
from the usual case (Campbell). The question, then, was whether or not the citys vision of future
public gains was viable enough to seize their property anyway. New London barely won the
case; ironically, just a few short years later, the company that was the anchor of the plan moved
out, leaving behind empty lots and boarded-up houses (Stewart). Still, the fact remains: as long
as property is seized for the sake of economic development, it can be taken away at the citys
discretion, no matter how unfair it may seem. Eminent domain was used in Washington, D.C., to
take away property from business owners at the Skyland Shopping Center for supposed
economic development. Elaine Mittleman, representative attorney of the owners who didnt want
to sell, argued that the real goal of the Skyland project [wasn't] economic development; after
all, the city had assembled land worth $25 million and then sold it to a developer for a mere $4
million (Campbell). The projected economic development is unclear. However, the point
remains: as long as property is seized for the sake of economic development or similar
projects, the city is free to take almost anything it wants with little or no consequence. As
Associated Press writer Pete Yost pointed out, Over the years, the Supreme Court has deferred
to the decision-making of elected state and local officials. The Supreme Court generally adheres
to the precedents that it sets, making it unlikely that they will reign in the use of eminent domain.
In addition, the Kelo v. City of New London case also set a precedent: private land seized for
private development can, due to speculated tax revenues and generated jobs, be considered a

Tang 5
valid public use. Homeowners are liable to lose their property if it is convenient to citysponsored private developers, and they have nearly no defense. To add insult to injury, the
purpose for which their property is seized is not always guaranteed to reach fruition, as the Kelo
v. City of New London case and Skyland project demonstrate all too clearly. Yet neighborhoods
and homes do not take precedent over tax-producing organizations; after all, which one will
bring the city more profit? Eminent domain has transformed from an instrument of the people to
a tool of cheap economic expansion.
The consequences of this shift in purpose are alarming to look at: eminent domain is
being abused. The city of Riviera Beach, California, [planned] to use eminent domain to take
the homes of 5,100 people if the residents do not agree to move, reported Cauchon in his article
Pushing the Limits of Public Use. He also points out the case of the Detroit Poletown
neighborhood, where the city took 1,300 homes, 140 businesses, six churches and a hospital to
make room for a luxury car plant. Sometimes cities raze down buildings simply for parking lots
for casinos and other tax-producing businesses (Yost). These are people and businesses
displaced, all for the sake of private businesses whose taxes will bring the city more revenue.
Brandon Gaille, a business marketing expert, wrote, From 1998 through 2002, more than
10,000 properties in 41 states faced condemnation, or the threat of it, to hand the land to private
developers. And alarmingly enough, according to Dana Berliner of the Wall Street Journal, we
are increasingly hearing complaints from home and business owners about government attempts

Tang 6
to take property for private development projects. Eminent domain violates the basic right to
own property, and happens on a far too regular basis; the fact that it can be used on the premise
of simple promises of economic growth, with no concrete assurance that it will occur, is
unacceptable. Perhaps the most damning fact of all is that, in 2009, of the 152 eminent domainrelated appeals of notice filed in New York, less than 7% made it past a preliminary inquiry
(Gaille).
The city determines what property is taken, what public use it is put to, and how much
the property owners are paid. In other words, they are judge, jury, and executioner, with almost
nothing to check their powers. The practice of eminent domain must cease its existence as a
violation of property rights and an all-too-often abused power of the government. Homeowners
cannot stop eminent domain once it is invoked, nor are their protests heard. The question then is,
how many more people will lose their homes before eminent domain finally comes to an end?

Tang 7

Works Cited
Berliner, Dana. "Eminent Domain Abusers Are Making a Comeback." Wall Street
Journal. 17 May 2014: A.11. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 11 May 2015.
Campbell, Doug. "The Economics of Eminent Domain." Region Focus Vol. 9, No. 4. Fall
2005: 25-29. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 11 May 2015.
Cauchon, Dennis. "Pushing the Limits of 'Public Use'." USA TODAY. 31 Mar. 2004: n.p.
SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 11 May 2015.
Denton, Christopher. "Using Eminent Domain for Pipelines?." Wall Street Journal. 13
Apr. 2013: A.13. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 11 May 2015.
Gaille, Brandon. "19 Eminent Domain Statistics." BrandonGaille.com. Brandon Gaille,
21 Jan. 2015. Web. 11 May 2015.
Greenberg, Marcia. "In the Path of Pipelines." Washington Post. 19 Oct. 2014: C.4. SIRS
Issues Researcher. Web. 11 May 2015.
KELO v. CITY OF NEW LONDON. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of
Law. 11 May 2015.
Rogers, Robert. "Eminent Domain Could Be Used in Battle Against Foreclosures..."
Contra Costa Times. 26 May 2013: A.1. SIRS Issues Researcher.Web. 11 May 2015.
Stewart, Corey A. "A Vote to Protect a Bedrock Liberty: Property Rights vs. the Public..."
Washington Post. 21 Oct. 2012: C.4. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 11 May 2015.

Tang 8
Yost, Pete. "Supreme Court to Hear Eminent Domain Case." Hartford Courant (Hartford,
CT). Feb. 22 2005: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 11 May 2015.