Unintended Consequences: Eminent Domain

Eminent Domain - Full Video - YouTube

Discussion Questions based on the video – Choose any SIX to answer – answers should be thorough!
1. Since the terms “public use” and “just compensation” are not defined in the Constitution, how has their
meaning been determined?
2. How did the 1954 Supreme Court ruling depart from the traditional interpretation of eminent domain?
Is home ownership more secure or less secure under the new interpretation? Explain.
The original interpretation was revised and now eminent domain will be used not only for public
welfare but also for the city to help create other means of earning money and generating
companies. Home protection is at an all-time low so the land will be taken so that a company can
prosper, rather than for valuable community assets such as schools or hospitals. Your property
can be confiscated for virtually every purpose.
3. How are projects such as schools and roads fundamentally different from the economic development
projects highlighted in the video? What is the essential difference?
Schools/communities help develop communities for them it to be a safer environment for all. On the other
hand, economic programs serve only to help large corporations grow and the city raise more tax revenue.
This suggests that the general public health of the city and its residents is no longer taken into account.
4. Prior to 1954, how did developers acquire a desirable piece of property? Given the current
interpretation of eminent domain, how else might developers acquire property? What is the impact of the
new interpretation on property owners? On developers?
Prior to 1954, there was only 1 way in which developers were able to recieve a piece of property. This
was by proving to whomever they were getting the land of off, that the land will be used for the
development of things like schools and roads. Now that these laws are in effect, they will proceed to seize
land by demonstrating how they can make the city more appealing and how it can help the region earth
continue to pay taxes. Developers can now obtain any piece of property they desire as long as they
demonstrate the ability to obtain more capital. On the opposite, property owners now have no rights as to
whether their land can be seized or not.
5. What does “economic development for the good of the community” mean if some people are hurt and
some are helped by it? What is to prevent politicians from taking property in the name of economic
development in order to enhance political contributions from large developers?
6. Why does journalist Steven Greenhut oppose taking property from one private owner and giving it to
another private owner? Is he against improving bad neighborhoods? Explain.
7. In New London, CT, one hundred property owners agreed to sell to the developers, and only a few
refused. Is it fair for a minority to be able to block a new development? Why/why not?
I assume that minorities and the general population should be able to obstruct proposed technologies
depending on how they would impact their neighborhood and the public health. Furthermore, as
mentioned in the video, if a certain location gives a group its name, it can not be excluded because it is
really important to the community.
8. Why did the Kelo case spark a huge debate about the importance of property rights? What was the case
about? Who won? What has been the impact of the Court’s decision upon the use of eminent domain to
transfer private property from one owner to another private owner?
9. Why was Kelo a victory for city planners? Why do many people think the Kelo decision gave
government too much power?
10. According to Justice John Paul Stevens, writing in the majority opinion in Kelo, “…that plan…serves
a public purpose…” What public purpose did it serve? Is “public purpose” in this sense the same as
“public use” as traditionally understood? Explain.
11. Who should make decisions about how property is used, the people who own the property, or the
government? Explain.
I believe that the government should have the most say on what the land is used for because citizens may
not have the most practical plans for their property, whereas the government should provide clear rules
that may be updated over time to ensure that they are as successful as possible.
12. According to Bruce Broadwater, “There are people who think that property has more rights than
human beings.” What does he mean by this? Does the concept of property rights mean that property has
rights? Is there a conflict between property rights and human rights?
This suggests that people may take property very personally and therefore should learn to treat it as an
entity rather than something personal. Property has some protections in order to protect its dignity, ensure
that it is not violated, and hold its reputation high in a specific culture. I think that there is a disparity
between property rights and human rights that people often extend the same rights that humans have to
their property, which can cause problems because humans clearly have a lot of rights to claim, and if this
is passed over to property, it can cause problems. When it comes to having to give up the land, this causes
far too many problems.