I’m not as bothered as I probably should be by the recent supreme court ruling on the subject of eminent domain. It will, of course, be used predominantly against the people who are disadvantaged, and strongly attached to their property. I sincerely doubt it will burn me especially badly, as I won’t be owning for several years, and I have a pretty mobile lifestyle as is. I think I’m less sympathetic because I don’t get the mindset. Give me 5-10 and I’ll share the outrage, most likely.
Though I still think the right thing to do is to develop and implement city plans that allow people to know what to expect when buying a home.
continuing our discussion…
If plans can be amended, then no one truly knows what to expect unless he thinks (correctly–and how would he really know?) he’s so powerful he can’t be beaten at political games. If plans can’t be amended, then there are going to be a lot of silly mistakes, anachronisms, windfalls, etc.
Just compensation seems fair enough to me. But I would take a more aggressive stance toward determining what is “just” in these cases involving transfers of property to other private parties. (I probably ought to be just as hostile to more purely public use cases, but for some reason I’m not. Perhaps I don’t have as much a problem with capture by revolution of the proles as I do with capture by Developer Corp. Actually, come to think of it, I am troubled by both of them very much, but legal bifurcation is fun and trendy.)
Fair market value as a measure of “just” compensation doesn’t make a lot of sense to me when someone in the market–or especially if everyone in the market–is being forced to sell. I think it would make sense to charge a premium over comparable transactions. Fair market value ought to be somewhat higher if transaction costs are lower. And “just compensation” ought to include some measure of personal/investment/psychic harm flowing from involuntary confiscation of property. Whatever premium one chose would be arbitrary, but if I were playing chancellor I would impose at least a 20% premium on comparable transactions. I think–although I’m not sure–that present methods just measure the fair value of a property according to what similar properties in the area sell for, and an owner doesn’t get any sort of premium when the government takes his property.
Moreover, if the underlying concern is that private parties might capture government and raid other private parties for their private benefit rather than the public weal, charging a premium would be responsive. The voting public would be more likely to be pissed off and change gears if its treasury were being wasted to provide benefits to Developer Corp. If Developer Corp. basically gets a bargain sale, which is how it is now in my opinion even though it’s labeled “just,” then no one has any incentive to stand up for the lone holdout.
Re: continuing our discussion…
Yeah, I agree that (i) plans can’t be an authority since they’re subject to political pressure and change all the time and (ii) a disincentive by premium price to prevent abuse is good. I basically agree with everything you said.
To people who predict a doomsday scenario with this ruling, I say that our democracy is designed to be transparent and prevent graft, and this ruling doesn’t change that design. Not that I can think of any now, but there must be tons of examples of governmental authority that could be abused under current regulations and case law. But they’re not, so why be cynical about this and not about, say, the Patriot Act (which *can* actually be changed now)?
Urbsn renewal by any other name
Sure shocked the hell out of me, this Supreme Court decision. It cut a big hole in Detroit year ago to carve out highways which are congested and full of feeling workers who drive back to suburbia from their jobs in Detroit. Yes, it hurts poor people who are displaced the most.
Thanks for sharing.
I’m a homeowner, and I think the best defense against this sort of tomfoolery is to plant endangered plants and harbor endangered animals on my property. I just need one of those rare Florida panthers in my loft, and I’ll be safe!
Oh, and my uneducated prediction is that some Midwestern small town will use eminent domain to demolish a women’s clinic to build a Wal-Mart, and the ruling will be overturned 🙂