The Great Debate: Eminent domain is back in the spotlight.
The Institute for Justice has long disagreed with lobbyists who claim that curbing eminent domain would destroy economic development. A new report from this public-interest law firm supports its own theory. By examining construction jobs, building permits, and property tax revenues in states with and without eminent domain reform, the Institute found no adverse economic effects from halting or stopping eminent domain.
The Institute’s report, which was released in February, notes that “securing property rights and stimulating economic development can coexist. Legislators nationwide should be encouraged to keep good reforms in place while pursuing new and stronger safeguards against eminent domain abuse.”
Steven Andersen, director of the Institute’s Castle Coalition (its property rights arm), cites Anaheim, Calif., as a perfect example of a city center being developed without the use of eminent domain. The city’s Platinum Triangle—a high-density mixed-use district—was created under the direction of Mayor Curt Pringle without condemning property. The area was developed through public policy changes such as rezoning, new building requirements, and an easier permitting process.
“People are smart enough to figure out ways to develop when they can’t purchase property through eminent domain,” Andersen says. “Developers do it this way every single day, so [curbing eminent domain] should not have any negative impact to them.”
John McIlwain, an Urban Land Institute senior resident fellow, agrees—with a catch. It’s a great thing when cities can build without eminent domain, he says, but the ultimate question is whether this strategy is always a viable solution.
“This doesn’t mean you [can] deny one of the most effective tools for the redevelopment of our communities,” McIlwain says. “Just because they can get away with it in Anaheim doesn’t mean you could in Brooklyn.”
