Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=999616
 
 

Citations (2)



 
 

Footnotes (61)



 


 



Reframing Eminent Domain: Unsupported Advocacy, Ambiguous Economics, and the Case for a New Public Use Test


David A. Dana


Northwestern University - School of Law


Vermont Law Review, 2007
Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 07-20
Northwestern Law & Econ Research Paper No. 07-03

Abstract:     
The two eminent domain reform alternatives currently on the political agenda are a flat ban on condemnations or a ban on only economic development condemnations coupled with continued allowance of blight condemnations (the approach in most reforming states). Although the possible effects of reform are central to the current debate, scholars have not carefully addressed those effects. With regard to the quantitative effects of reform, this Article uses an accessible model to demonstrates that: (1) a flat ban on all exercises of eminent domain will result in some less development in urban areas (poor or not poor) and some more development in exurban or rural areas; (2) a ban on only economic development condemnations (which allows so-called blight or blight removal condemnations to continue as before) will result in some more development in poor urban areas (but not necessarily in urban areas as a whole) and in exurban or rural ones, and less development in suburban areas (at least non-poor suburbs); and (3) the extent to which alternative means of subsidizing new development (such as tax relief) will offset the loss of eminent domain depends on the level of competition among localities for new development prior to ban or restrictions on the use of eminent domain. We can say less about the quality of the development after eminent domain reforms than we can about the quantity of development after eminent domain reforms, as the qualitative claims about the nature of the development that will be encouraged or discouraged as a result of eminent domain "reforms" lack both theoretical and empirical support. Stated simply, there is no defensible way to categorize as good or bad, economically viable or non-viable, efficient or inefficient, socially beneficial or socially harmful, the development in urban areas that will be lost as a result of a flat ban on eminent domain or (in poor urban areas at least) that will be gained as a result of a ban on economic development condemnations coupled with continued allowance of blight condemnations. Given that, a new approach to the public use component of eminent domain law is needed.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 53

Keywords: Environmental Law, Property and Land Use, Law and Economics, Constitutional Law

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: July 12, 2007  

Suggested Citation

Dana, David A., Reframing Eminent Domain: Unsupported Advocacy, Ambiguous Economics, and the Case for a New Public Use Test. Vermont Law Review, 2007; Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 07-20; Northwestern Law & Econ Research Paper No. 07-03. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=999616

Contact Information

David A. Dana (Contact Author)
Northwestern University - School of Law ( email )
375 E. Chicago Ave
Unit 1505
Chicago, IL 60611
United States
312-503-0240 (Phone)
312-503-2035 (Fax)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,015
Downloads: 137
Download Rank: 124,314
Citations:  2
Footnotes:  61

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.515 seconds