Eminent Domain Case Analysis

917 Words4 Pages
This seems to be the fundamental issue underlying the paper: a pernicious sense of what is valuable. Multiple times, the paper asserts that the be-all, end-all metric of value ought to be economic value, specifically the value derived from synergistic arrangements of real property. But viewing a situation through this lens dehumanizes the situation. It leads to situations where we can, with a straight face, describe human settlement as clutter to be disposed of. Indeed, alternative metrics of value exist which add nuance to the situation. Sentimental or cultural value, for example, may be entirely at odds with economic value. Were a city to grow and encompass sacred Native American land, would it not be fair to consider such interests alongside those of the capital class? What about a family with ancestors…show more content…
One of the crucial assumptions underlying the paper’s analysis is that a redevelopment effort will necessarily create positive economic value. But what if it does not? Kelo serves as a perfect example. What was supposed to be a profitable facility is currently an empty lot collecting storm debris. At least with eminent domain, voters have some form of cathartic recourse. They can vote out the individuals who made the decision to condemn their homes for an ultimately disastrous product. In a callable fee or floating fee situation, voters have little ability to seek redress, instead nurturing feelings of political disenfranchisement and anti-establishment resentment. Further, the threat of losing their seats incentivizes politicians to carefully examine any proposed development and only exercise their power when reasonably sure of its success, minimizing potential mishaps. Thus, voters are both empowered and incentives are put in place to encourage careful decision-making concerning development
Get Access