The University of Rhode Island

Eminent Domain: an Assessment of the use of Governmental Power in

Private Land Takings

Rebecca Zahora
CPL 434
Dr. Gordon
29 October 2015

Introduction
Subsequent to the industrialization of the United States and two
World Wars, a history of gentrification and urban sprawl has created a
disproportionate foundation, upon which present-day private land
takings via eminent domain have derived, and conversely, have
resulted in an unequal distribution of costs to landowners. The focus of
this paper will use the latter notion as a fundamental vehicle, along
with economic concepts, to assess the prospective abuse of eminent
domain by the government.
The conceptual origins of eminent domain stem back to
English Common Law, and over time events in history have shaped the
present classification of eminent domain found under the Takings
Clause of the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation1. Furthermore, the conflicts and issues regarding the
taking of land through eminent domain date equivalently as far back as
its origins and have molded its meaning and interpretations
concurrently, and continue to do so. In fact, very recent eminent
domain Supreme Court decisions and outcomes have challenged the
language of the Takings Clause; specifically the term public use. The
preliminary cases that will be considered in this paper are Berman v.
Parker, Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit, and Kelo v.
City of New London; the outcomes of each sparked public
consciousness regarding the abuse of governmental power in the
taking of land via eminent domain.
From the perspective of an environmental economics student, it
is seemingly imperative to incorporate economic theory and concepts
to provide a framework that which supports the focus of this paper by
1 Miceli, Thomas J. The Economic Theory of Eminent Domain: Private
Property, Public Use. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print.

providing an economic perspective to uphold the rationale behind the

taking of land, along with identifying the relevance of fundamental
concepts such as externalitiesi and the allocation of benefits and costs
specifically, who bares the burdens of governmental projects
implemented to benefit the public. Furthermore, an economic
framework is a beneficial perspective when assessing monetary
aspects of eminent domain such as just compensation and taxation by
using the market to determine fair value, takers surplus, and the
collection of property taxes2. Lastly, in addition to this economic
framework, historical context is also necessary to support the focus of
this paper by providing essential demographics that further
conceptualize the disproportionate effects of gentrification,
urbanization, and urban sprawl.
Content
To reiterate, the focus of this paper will provide a combination of
relevant historical context and economic concepts to assess
government uses of eminent domain and identify the allocation of
benefits as well as the burden of costs. This paper aims at doing so by
first providing a vital historical foundation, beginning with a brief
history of eminent domain from its European origins to recent
Supreme Court cases and decisions that have shaped the publics
perspective and specified the language within the Takings Clause.
Subsequently, relevant historical events such as gentrification and
urban sprawl will be discussed to provide fundamental historical
context and background. After a concrete historical basis is provided,
the paper will address the key points of three preliminary eminent
domain Supreme Court Cases. Next, the paper will introduce economic
concepts to expound upon aspects of eminent domain, which will
contribute to a more in depth perspective of the topic. Specifically, the
2 Miceli, Thomas J. The Economic Theory of Eminent Domain: Private
Property, Public Use. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print.

economic framework will use fundamental economic concepts and

market activity to further explain the supply, demand, and surpluses of
land takings via eminent domain, and will provide a different
perspective on just compensation, taxation, and the distribution of
social welfare. The economic concepts and historical events will
provide a substantial basis, which will be referred to throughout the
paper, and will solidify the proceeding content regarding private
benefits, public use, and relevant public action and litigation. Before
conclusions and implications are brought to light, a discussion section
will be included in the paper to address personal opinions regarding
the connection between issues concerning the use of eminent domain
and a projected theory about reverse gentrification. Lastly, a
summation and interpretation of key points of the paper will be
addressed in the conclusion section.
Historical Background
Eminent Domain
The conceptual origins of eminent domain date back to Hugo Grotius in
1625, who addressed the question of the power of the sovereign over
land3. The succeeding notion that the sovereign could seize private
property for the states use was originated and solidified through
English Common Law and brought to the US.
In America, newly liberal beliefs regarding the prevalence of private
property and the need to protect it became the ideological trend that
culminated the concluding clause of the Fifth Amendment of the US
Constitution in 1791, which states that not shall private property be
taken for pubic use, without just compensation4. During the mid to
3 Rams, Edwin M. "De Facto Taking." Valuation for Eminent Domain.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973. 87-88. Print.
4 Miceli, Thomas J. The Economic Theory of Eminent Domain: Private
Property, Public Use. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print.

late 1800s, land takings via eminent domain were being widely used to
subsidize expansion projects in the U.S. such as railways and canals,
and were aimed towards economic development. But, by early 1900s
many states began to make changes to their constitutions in an effort
to limit the seemingly unrestricted use of eminent domain5. In the 1954
case Berman v. Parker6, the Supreme Court ruled that taking private
property and paying just compensation to remove blight served a
public purpose and met the requirements of the Fifth Amendment, this
ruling caused public unrest because the property was sold to private
interests and in reality had little use by the public. In 2005, the
controversial ruling in the Kelo v. New London7 case broadened the
term public use to mean public purpose, and therefore concluded that
eminent domain could be used to take land from one private
landowner and give it to another for the sake of economic
development8. Both cases will be further addressed later in the paper,
but it is important to note that the outcome of the two, especially the
latter, brought public consciousness to governmental use of eminent
domain, clarified the language used in the Takings Clause, and sparked
reactive legislation.
Gentrification and Urban Sprawl
In post-World War II America, highway implementation and
expansion, along with the divestment and deindustrialization of cities,
5 Miceli, Thomas J. The Economic Theory of Eminent Domain: Private
Property, Public Use. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print.
6 Berman v. Parker LII / Legal Information Institute. LLI Supreme
Court Bulletin, n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.
7 "Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut (04-108)." LII / Legal
Information Institute. LLI Supreme Court Bulletin, n.d. Web. 21 Oct.
2015.
8 Garrett, Thomas A., and Paul Rothstein. "The Taking of Prosperity?
Kelo vs. New London and the Economics of Eminent Domain." Federal
Reserve Bank of St.Louis. N.p., Jan. 2007. Web. 29 Oct. 2015.

was paralleled by the relocation of middle and upper class populations

from cities to suburbia; a historical concept known widely as
gentrification. As prosperous economic incentives drove the upper and
middle class out, de facto and de jure discriminatory measures, such
as redliningii and residential housing segregation, were implemented
primarily to prevent the mixing of subordinate and dominant groups by
keeping the subordinates in the cities/out of the suburbs.
Consequently, these preventative measures were successful in terms
of maintaining the location of low-income minority populations, but
yielded adverse results by concurrently confining low-income minority
populations to deindustrialized inner-city locations, causing the
concentration of poverty and economic instability to increase with little
possibility of departure. This notion can be exemplified through postWorld War II Boston, where all of the above occurred, which forced lowincome minority populations into 3 highly concentrated areasiii.
Furthermore, general notions and trends under the seemingly
synonymous concept known as urban sprawl can provide more
background. Defined as the tendency toward lower city densities as
city footprints expand, urban sprawl is facilitated by two trends: 1) the
decline in transportation costs, 2) the flight of higher-income
households to the suburbs. Therefore, the combination of an increase
in urban populations and an outward spatial expansion of urban areas
has resulted in the fraction of the overall population living in urban
areas to increase from 50% in 1920 to 79% in 20009.
It is important to recognize the connection of this history to
conceptualize potential abuses of eminent domain by the government.
For example, eminent domain is a main tool in urban renewal projects
such as highway expansion and urban redevelopment projects. This
9 Miceli, Thomas J. The Economic Theory of Eminent Domain: Private
Property, Public Use. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print.

use of eminent domain is justified by (proposed) job creation,

enhanced taxes, and residential revitalization10, but these projects
generally take underdeveloped land (which are populated by lowincome minority groups) and displace and disperse the unity of their
communities. In addition, the threat of eminent domain by urban
renewal projects caused condemnation blightivto occur which is
exemplified by the threat of condemnation causing three out of four
correlating apartment buildings to be vacant, as seen in Foster v. City
of Detroit11.
Preliminary Cases
Berman v. Parker
This case involves a redevelopment plan that was aimed at eliminating
urban blight in the city of Washington, DC, for which the Supreme
Court allowed the use of eminent domain. The court decided that since
the redevelopment of the area was in the public interest, all property,
including non-blight property, in the designated area could be taken as
a part of the project12

Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit

In this case, the Michigan Supreme Court allowed the city of
Detroit to condemn an entire ethnic neighborhood in order to clear the
way for a General Motors assembly plant. The court recognized that
although the intended land use was essentially private, the new jobs
and tax revenues that were promised by the plan satisfied the public
10 Miceli, Thomas J. The Economic Theory of Eminent Domain: Private
Property, Public Use. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print.
11 Rams, Edwin M. "De Facto Taking." Valuation for Eminent Domain.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973. 87-88. Print.
12 Miceli, Thomas J. The Economic Theory of Eminent Domain: Private
Property, Public Use. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print.

use requirement. In a later case, County of Wayne v. Hathcock, the

court ended up over turning its decision in Poletown, ruling, it was
contrary to the fundamental protection of private property afforded by
the constitution13.
Kelo v. City of New London
By the late 1990s, the city of New London experienced an
unemployment rate nearly double that of the rest of the state as well
as its lowest population rate in decades. These factors impelled state
and local officials to target the deteriorated areas of New London for
economic revitalization14. In this case, said redevelopment plan in New
London, Connecticut was proposed, and later authorized, under the
implications that it was aimed at the revitalization of the distressed
downtown and waterfront areas. The authorization of this plan allowed
the use of eminent domain to acquire properties within the proposed
area, the residents of which were exceptionally unwilling. The plan
then turned over the bulk of this land to Pfizer, a large pharmaceutical
company, to construct a research facility. In the very controversial 5-4
Supreme Court decision - the city has carefully formulated an
economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable
benefits to the community, including, but by no means limited to new
jobs and increased tax revenue. Because that plan unquestionably
serves a public purpose, the takings satisfied the public use
requirement. The ruling of this case specifically ignited public
consciousness and concern that contributed to the shaping of the
interpretation of eminent domain for two reasons. The first being that
the ruling went beyond previous definitions of pubic use by allowing
13 Miceli, Thomas J. The Economic Theory of Eminent Domain: Private
Property, Public Use. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print.
14 Mikkelsen, Scott D. "Eminent Domain after Kelo v. City of New
London: Compensating for the Supreme Court's Refusal to Enforce the
Fifth Amendment." Thesis. Duke Law School, 2007. Duke Law. 2007.
Web. 15 Oct. 2015.

the transfer of land from one private party to another so long as the
new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit to the public
such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even esthetic
pleasure15 the use of language regarding public use was broadened
to justify private land transfers. Secondly, the redevelopment and
Pfizer construction plans were never implemented, thus the
government aided a private land taking that never actually used the
land.
Economic Framework
Fundamental Economic Concepts
The origin and preliminary basis of eminent domain concerns the
fundamental concept of property rights, which is perceived differently
from the viewpoints of law and economics. From a law perspective,
property rights define and protect those things that people can and
cannot do with the assets under their control, in this case, land. From
an economic standpoint, property rights provide incentives for people
to use their assets in an efficient way. A combination of these two
points of view illustrates that the role of the law is to limit owners
property rights in hopes of minimizing externalities that yield inefficient
land use, and provide government intervention to ensure the
achievement of efficient land use16.
Just Compensation
One of the main issues that eminent domain law focuses on is
that of just compensation. The original requirements of just
15 Miceli, Thomas J. The Economic Theory of Eminent Domain: Private
Property, Public Use. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print.
16 Miceli, Thomas J. The Economic Theory of Eminent Domain: Private
Property, Public Use. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print.

compensation were to leave the displaced landowner as well off as if

the taking had not occurred a notion which is visibly illusive.
Therefore, the courts solution has associated just compensation with
fair market value, which is the value that reflects what a willing buyer
in the market would have paid. Though this seems reasonable, it has
also proven to be deceptive and has resulted in undercompensation of
the actual amount that an owner would accept in a consensual sale17.
This, along with a debate regarding the allocation of buyers surplus,
raises concern about fairness, equity, and efficiency. Since the sale of
land under eminent domain is not consensual, it is therefore forced,
meaning it has the potential to allow inefficient sales by
undercompensating the seller due to the fact that they cannot walk
away. Concurrently, there is an issue regarding whether compensation
under market value should reflect the future value of the impending
public project. This issue is addressed in US v. Miller, whereby the court
denied landowners a share in any surplus created by the proposed
public project, which was defended by the argument that the land
owner is only entitled to indemnity for his loss18.
Urban Sprawl and Urban Renewal
In economic terms, urban sprawl can be defined upon the notion
that increases in land prices toward the center of cities causes housing
developers to substitute capital for land, which holds the quantity of
housing fixed and is paralleled by the increase in housing prices
towards the city center that causes demand for housing to fall. In
short, economists view urban sprawl as an inefficient outward growth19.
17 Miceli, Thomas J. The Economic Theory of Eminent Domain: Private
Property, Public Use. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print.
18 Miceli, Thomas J. The Economic Theory of Eminent Domain: Private
Property, Public Use. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print.
19 Miceli, Thomas J. The Economic Theory of Eminent Domain: Private
Property, Public Use. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print.

Urban renewal refers to developmental projects and policies to

revitalize inner-city areas by using eminent domain to acquire
properties displace residents, and existing homes and businesses with
new development. In terms of urban renewal, the economics are based
on the role of the government in correcting market failures that arise
from externalities. Furthermore, the Berman and Kelo cases provide a
foundation of the legal principle that urban renewal projects satisfy the
public use requirement for eminent domain by generating external
benefits (new jobs, increased tax revenue, and the eradication of urban
blight). Arguments contradict the latter notion through the recognition
that because it involves the transfer of land from one private party to
another renders the public use requirement essentially
meaningless20
Government Use of Eminent Domain
Background
The content of the past two sections has provided a substantial
amount of information to create a concrete foundation of historic and
economic concepts to assess potential government abuse through the
use of eminent domain. Before doing so, it is important to recognize
that the allocation of goods will depend on the initial distribution of
wealth and property rights21, which corresponds to the notion that
government land takings penetrate the economic and social tangles
caused by decades of past government regulations22, alluding to the
20 Miceli, Thomas J. The Economic Theory of Eminent Domain: Private
Property, Public Use. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print.
21 Siegan, Bernard H. Planning without Prices: The Taking Clause as It
Relates to Land Use Regulation without Compensation. Lexington, MA:
Lexington, 1977. 75+. Print.
22 Siegan, Bernard H. Planning without Prices: The Taking Clause as It
Relates to Land Use Regulation without Compensation. Lexington, MA:
Lexington, 1977. 75+. Print.

importance of relevant historical context. In this section, various

examples of abuse will be highlighted as well as specific case
examples.
Undercompensating and Tax Motivation
As addressed previously in this paper, the requirement of just
compensation can be deceptive, and due to the non-consensual sale
of land by eminent domain, sellers cannot walk away from the
transaction and are (generally) forced to accept the fair market value
that is determined by the taker. A combination of two studies
addressed by Miceli suggest that, actual compensation awards in
eminent domain cases do not closely track the fair market value
standard, thus justifying one example of governmental abuse of
power through eminent domain by exemplifying unjust
undercompensation. Furthermore, the court has denied landowners a
share in any surplus created by the proposed public project; therefore
the private party that used the government to obtain private property
now receives all monetary benefits, which proves to be an extremely
disproportionate allocation of costs and benefits23. Additionally,
whereas the purpose of eminent domain reform is the explicit
restriction of the states ability to take property, the explicit purpose of
just compensation clauses within such reform and the litigation of
plaintiffs seeking such compensation is the idea of a more equitable
distribution of the costs and benefits of regulation24. Furthermore, the
use of collective terms (in this case public use/purpose/benefit) may
masque the effects and consequences of governmental programs,
23 Miceli, Thomas J. The Economic Theory of Eminent Domain: Private
Property, Public Use. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print.
24 Botello-Samson, Darren. Regulatory Takings and the Environment:
The Impact of Property Rights Litigation. El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly
Pub., 2010. Print.

especially when the group that burdens the costs is

underrepresented25. The concept of horizontal equityv challenges the
disproportionate allocation of costs and benefits, which stem from
undercompensation by recognizing that individual land owners cannot
be singled out to bear a disproportionate burden of the cost of public
projects by being forced to give up their land in return for insufficient
compensation. In addition, this is justified by the notion that the one of
the purposes of the Fifth Amendment is to guarantee that the
government will not force individuals to bear public burdens, because
they should be borne by the public as a whole.26
With undercompensation of the fair market value, a new form of
governmental abuse of eminent domain arises through the collection
of property taxes by the local government, without a bright line rule
preventing the use of eminent domain for private projects, nothing
would stop a city from transferring citizen As property to a more
productive use and thus pay more taxes27. This notion insinuates the
potential governmental incentive of tax revenue to use eminent
domain, specifically for redevelopment projects.
Redevelopment Projects
The public use requirement of eminent domain justifies
redevelopment projects, which are aimed at the revitalization of
deteriorated areas. Due to the history of gentrification and urban
sprawl, such underdeveloped areas are typically found in inner-city
25 Siegan, Bernard H. Planning without Prices: The Taking Clause as It
Relates to Land Use Regulation without Compensation. Lexington, MA:
Lexington, 1977. 75+. Print.
26 Miceli, Thomas J. The Economic Theory of Eminent Domain: Private
Property, Public Use. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print.
27 Miceli, Thomas J. The Economic Theory of Eminent Domain: Private
Property, Public Use. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print.

areas and slums. The concept behind these redevelopment projects

may seem prosperous, but it is imperative to recognize that eminent
domain may be used as a redevelopment tool, but alone it is not a
solution to the underlying causes of the deterioration and need for
urban renewal in the first place. Additionally, the revitalization of
neighborhoods deems useless without proper implementation of
policies that address these underlying factors, therefore a sustainable
outcome will not be produced through urban renewal alone.
Furthermore, government intervention is temporary, which suggests
that slums will eventually persist and will likely revert back to the
original inefficient equilibrium if the previously mentioned forces are
left in tact. The latter notions justify governmental tax incentives and
motivations under the preconceived notion that the government is
aware that eminent domain is not a sustainable solution to community
redevelopment28.
The Effect of Kelo v. City of New London
The controversial Supreme Court decision in this case initiated
public action. The plaintiffs requested that the court perform two tasks
to justify the use of eminent domain. The first was to establish a
bright line rule which would eliminate economic development from
the definition of public use. This task was shut down by the majority of
the court due to a lack of basis for exemption. Instead, to address this
requested task, the court expanded the term public use to public
purpose and distinguished the differences between private and public
benefits. The second task proposed that the courts should establish the
existence of a reasonable certainty that the projected public benefits
will actually occur. The court responded to this by differing municipality
28 Miceli, Thomas J. The Economic Theory of Eminent Domain: Private
Property, Public Use. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print.

upon the notion that empirical debates over the wisdom of takings
are not to be carried out in the federal courts.

29

This case illustrates the fine lines of the use of eminent domain for
economic development, and contrary to the courts decision, deems to
be unjust. Though the outcome of this case was unfavorable in the
public eye, it shed light on the potential governmental abuse of private
property takings and private sector land transfers via eminent domain,
which had a prominent effect in the subsequent years midterm
elections 11 state ballots contained initiatives to restrict eminent
domain power through defining public use as not including economic
development30

Discussion Section
In this section, I will revisit the concept of gentrification and
urban sprawl to introduce a thought-provoking theory regarding the
future of this notion. To do so, I will start by recognizing that one of the
prominent driving factors of the movement out of cities and into
suburbs was low transportation cost due to highway and railroad
expansion as well as low gas prices. This movement out of the cities
and into the suburbs set a historical foundation of the trend of long
commutes to work and a desire to divulge from hectic city life, which
stands true in present day. Although currently gas prices have been on
the decline, fossil fuel resources are bound to run out, thus creating a
shortage, which in turn will cause gas prices to skyrocket. In my
29 Botello-Samson, Darren. Regulatory Takings and the Environment:
The Impact of Property Rights Litigation. El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly
Pub., 2010. Print.
30 Botello-Samson, Darren. Regulatory Takings and the Environment:
The Impact of Property Rights Litigation. El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly
Pub., 2010. Print.

opinion, a substantial rise in gas prices will be paralleled by a reverse

gentrification movement from suburbia back into the cities. It is
evident that long commutes and high gas prices do not compliment
each other, and therefore, will provide incentives for commuters within
the suburban populations to move closer to their city jobs.
Furthermore, as resources become increasingly scarce, the importance
of community will increase concurrently, resulting in another driving
factor of a reverse gentrification movement. So what? Well, it is
important to recognize the previous long-lasting effects of
gentrification and urban sprawl, which lead me to question what effect
a reverse movement will have on underdeveloped inner-city
communities. From my perspective, it can be projected that as demand
by high and middle income groups for inner-city housing increases, the
government, along with the private sector, will realize the incentives of
this increase in demand. Such incentives may result in an increased
use of eminent domain to obtain private land for redevelopment
projects to create a supply that will meet the demand, causing
property values in the cities to increase and those in the suburbs to
decrease. If said redevelopment projects are successful, and the
demand for inner-city housing sustains, this will cause wealth to be
brought back to the cities, therefore pushing low-income populations
out. All of which will increase tax revenue, which is the prominent
favorable outcome desired by the government. To conclude, as factors
of commuting from the suburbs to the cities become increasingly
unsustainable, there will be an increase in demand for inner-city
housing by middle and high income groups, causing tax based
incentives for the government to use eminent domain to take and
redevelop land to meet demand and receive the benefits of an increase
in tax revenue. In turn, this hypothetical reverse gentrification will
disproportionately allocate the costs upon low-income minority groups
as seen in the past. Lastly, it is imperative to recognize that if this

theory stands true, and low-income minority populations are pushed

out of the cities, they will face a substantially greater burden regarding
the allocation of depleting resources due to a lack of economic means
to travel to high concentrated areas.
Conclusions and Implications
The purpose of this paper was to assess the use of governmental
power of private land takings via eminent domain through historical
context and economic theory. A history of urban sprawl created the
disproportionate foundations of inner-city slums, which the government
now attempts to revitalize through a controversial use of eminent
domain in which the line between public use and private benefit
becomes blurry. Additionally, the tax based incentives of urban renewal
redevelopment projects may result in the abuse of governmental
power of private land takings through eminent domain. Furthermore,
the focus of this paper implies that landowners face the majority of the
burden of the costs associated with these takings, while the land takers
receive the entirety of any surplus revenue. Finally, the courts decision
in Kelo sparked public consciousness regarding the abuse of
governmental power through eminent domain, which resulted in the
distinction of the requirement of public use and initiated state litigation
to protect against unfair takings.

\
Works Cited

Berman v. Parker LII / Legal Information Institute. LLI Supreme Court

Bulletin, n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.
Botello-Samson, Darren. Regulatory Takings and the Environment: The
Impact of Property Rights Litigation. El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly Pub.,
2010. Print.
Eminent domain. (2015). In The Columbia Encyclopedia. New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
"Fair Housing Act." Encyclopedia of African American Society (2005): n.
pag. Federal Reserve. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.
Garrett, Thomas A., and Paul Rothstein. "The Taking of Prosperity? Kelo vs.
New London and the Economics of Eminent Domain." Federal Reserve
Bank of St.Louis. N.p., Jan. 2007. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.
"Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut (04-108)." LII / Legal Information
Institute. LLI Supreme Court Bulletin, n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2015.
"Kelo v. New London." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech,
n.d. Oct 26, 2015
Miceli, Thomas J. The Economic Theory of Eminent Domain: Private
Property, Public Use. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print.
Mikkelsen, Scott D. "Eminent Domain after Kelo v. City of New London:
Compensating for the Supreme Court's Refusal to Enforce the Fifth
Amendment." Thesis. Duke Law School, 2007. Duke Law. 2007. Web.
15 Oct. 2015.
Niedt, Christopher. "Comment on Carpenter and Ross Eminent Domain and
Equity." Urban Studies 3613-3619 48.16 (2011): n. pag. Sage Journals.
Aug. 2010. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.
Nivola, Pietro S. The Urban Service Problem: A Study of Housing Inspection.
Lexington, MA: Lexington, 1979. 12-13. Print.

Rams, Edwin M. "De Facto Taking." Valuation for Eminent Domain.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973. 87-88. Print.
Siegan, Bernard H. Planning without Prices: The Taking Clause as It Relates
to Land Use Regulation without Compensation. Lexington, MA:
Lexington, 1977. 75+. Print.

Notes

i For a definition of externalities, See Siegan 75.

ii Redlining is the practice of denying a creditworthy applicant a loan for housing
in a certain neighbor hood even though the applicant may otherwise be eligible
for the loan. The term refers to the presumed practice of mortgage lenders of
drawing red lines around portions of a map to indicate areas or neighborhoods in
which they do not want to make loans. Redlining on a racial basis has been held
by the courts to be an illegal practice. "Fair Housing Act." Encyclopedia of African
American Society (2005): n. pag. Federal Reserve. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.
iii South End, Roxbury, and Dorchester, which collectively accounted for 62
percent of the citys poor, 39 percent of the unemployed, and 92 percent of the
local black population. Additionally, 12 and 15 percent of all housing units were
vacant in these three locations, in contrast to 6 percent city-wide. Nivola, Pietro
S. The Urban Service Problem: A Study of Housing Inspection. Lexington, MA: Lexington, 1979. 1213. Print.
iv whereby property values in an area proposed for urban renewal would rapidly
depreciate due to tenants relocating themselves in other areas, as well as the
reluctance of property owners to spend money on repairs and intentional value
depressing acts by the city. Rams, Edwin M. "De Facto Taking." Valuation for
Eminent Domain. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973. 87-88. Print.
v See Miceli 78 for definition of horizontal equity.