Abstract
The U.S. Supreme Court nullified substantive limits on the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes in Kelo v. City of New London. While planners, private developers, and local economic development officials praised the decision because it protected their discretion, the practical effect has been to make rights to private land development and improvements discretionary and subject to the desires of majoritarian interests within a city or state. As long as cities, states, and other government agencies follow the letter of the law and formal procedures, property can be condemned and transferred to the public sector or other private parties.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Balmer, W. 1996. Memorandum from Community Development Manager, City of Mesa to Charles Luster, City Manager, City of Mesa, July 24, 1996.
Hartt, D.B. and K. Hopkins. 2002. Revisions for Consideration—Community Development Plan for the West End District, Memorandum to Frank Pietravoia, December 16, 2002.
Lakewood, City of. 2002. Community Development Plan for the West End District: Volume I Determination and Actions, prepared for the city of Lakewood by D.B. Hartt, Inc. and Square One, Inc., July 25, 2002.
—. 2003. Development Agreement with Lakewood Shoppes LLC, adopted June 16, 2003.
Institute for Justice. Putting the Brakes on Eminent Domain Abuse in Mesa, Arizona, Litigation Backgrounder, http://www.ij.org/private_property/arizona/background.html/.
—. Ohio’s City of Homes Faces Wrecking Ball of Eminent Domain Abuse, Litigation Backgrounder, http://www.ij.org/private_property/lakewood/backgrounder.html/.
Lenhart’s ACE Hardware. 2000. Proposal for City of Mesa, Site 24 Redevelopment Project, January 24.
López, Edward J. and Sasha M. Totah. 2007. Kelo and Its Discontents, The Independent Review 11 (3): 397–416, http://independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_11_03_04_lopez.pdf/.
Mesa, City of. 1999a. Minutes, Downtown Development Committee Meeting, January 21, 1999.
—. 1999b. Minutes. City Council, March 15, 1999.
Owsiany, D. 2006. Ohio Court Restores Balance to Eminent Domain, Akron Beacon Journal, August 1, 2006, http://www.reason.org/commentaries/owsiany_20060801.shtml/.
Pringle, C. 2007. Development Without Eminent Domain. Washington, DC: Institute for Justice, http://www.castlecoalition.org/pdf/publications/Perspectives-Pringle.pdf/.
Reason Foundation. Amicus Curiae brief, City of Long Branch v. Gregory P. Brower, et al., Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, n.d.
—. Amicus Curiae brief, City of Norwood v. Homey, Ohio Supreme Court, n.d.
Staley, S.R. 2003. Wrecking Property Rights, Reason, February.
—. 2006. Property Owners Score Major Victory in Ohio, Reason.org, July 27, 2006, http://www.reason.org/commentaries/staley_20060727.shtml/.
Staley, S.R. and J.P. Blair. 2005. Eminent Domain, Private Property, and Redevelopment: An Economic Analysis, Policy Study No. 331. Los Angeles: Reason Foundation, February, http://www.reason.org/ps331.pdf/.
Turnbull, G.K. and R. Salvino. 2006. Kelo v. Leviathan: The Public Purpose Doctrine and Government Size, Working Paper No. 06–02, Urban and Regional Analysis Group, School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, July.
U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2004–2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Editor information
Copyright information
© 2010 The Independent Institute
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Staley, S.R. (2010). The Proper Uses of Eminent Domain for Urban Redevelopment. In: Benson, B.L. (eds) Property Rights. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230107793_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230107793_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-0-230-10247-7
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-10779-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Economics & Finance CollectionEconomics and Finance (R0)