Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=669208
 
 

Citations (10)



 
 

Footnotes (145)



 


 



Taking Eminent Domain Apart


Lee Anne Fennell


University of Chicago Law School


Michigan State Law Review, p. 957, 2004

Abstract:     
Part of a symposium on public use, this essay presents an analytic framework for eminent domain that begins by breaking condemnations into two parts: a swap of property for fair market value, and the confiscation of what I term "the uncompensated increment." The uncompensated increment is made up of three distinct components: (1) the increment by which the property owner's subjective value exceeds fair market value; (2) the chance of reaping a surplus from trade (that is, of obtaining an amount larger than one's own true subjective valuation); and (3) the autonomy of choosing for oneself when to sell. Whether government can appropriate this uncompensated increment in a given instance gets to the heart of the public use inquiry. I suggest that the answer to the inquiry can be found in the same unloved and amorphous factors that determine whether other uncompensated appropriations of value amount to regulatory takings. The analytic template of regulatory takings law does a good job of grappling with important features of eminent domain fact patterns such as the degree of market thinness and the potential for political malfunction.

The aim of a regulatory takings inquiry is to determine whether compensation is required in order for the government to pursue an objective that is within its legitimate compass. In the eminent domain context, compensation is already being paid; hence, one might think that the application of regulatory takings factors to the uncompensated increment would merely go to the question of whether the level of compensation ought to be adjusted upward. But there is an incommensurability problem that is suggested by the autonomy component of the uncompensated increment. At least in some subset of cases, overriding autonomy with an involuntary sale seems problematic even if the amount of compensation is adjusted upward; the extra dollars, in a sense, are the wrong currency in which to provide "just compensation" for a taking. I will suggest some ways to set the parameters for this autonomy-based constraint on eminent domain, and will also discuss how principles of self-assessment might be employed to overcome the difficulties associated with forced sales in situations where public use is contested.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 50

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: February 21, 2005  

Suggested Citation

Fennell, Lee Anne, Taking Eminent Domain Apart. Michigan State Law Review, p. 957, 2004. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=669208

Contact Information

Lee Anne Fennell (Contact Author)
University of Chicago Law School ( email )
1111 E. 60th St.
Chicago, IL 60637
United States
773-702-0603 (Phone)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 4,508
Downloads: 427
Download Rank: 37,876
Citations:  10
Footnotes:  145

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.328 seconds