Being a college student, I have written my fair share of papers, and I have discussed many different topics, varying from political arguments to economics. Over the course of writing these papers, I explored a topic, a social injustice, that is never seen. This issue is Eminent Domain, and part of the problem is that very few Americans are even aware of what it is. Eminent Domain is a law that allows the government to procure private land for public use, with compensation of course. Eminent Domain is how that brand new school was made or how that busy road was widened by two lanes. This law, on paper, then appears to be a very sensible and needed tool for the proper expansion of our nation’s infrastructure. The problem with this law is how its power has expanded over the years. At first, the definition of public use was rather tame, and only consisted of purely public endeavors such as road expansion, municipal buildings, and other community projects. More recently, this definition has expanded, allowing for the government to cite “blight” as a reason for the acquisition of private property. In this context, blight is described as a degradation of the property, such as “chipped paint or cracked sidewalks”, which leads to an incredibly vague definition of what is fine and what is blighted. [1] Most recently, another change to public use was made, allowing for private property to be taken and given to another private party, usually a larger company, citing the expected economic impact generated from the new business as the reason for taking the land.
Now that the definition of Eminent Domain is clearer, we can explore the sociological issues involved with it. The three issues that I will discuss sociologically are 1) the value of personal property in American culture, 2) the personal definition of “public use”, and 3) the groups targeted by Eminent Domain.
In American culture, we are raised to have a love and yearning for property. We live in a country where no one can make us buy something we don’t want to buy, and where we can buy almost anything. This is due to the nature of our country being a capitalist economy, which allows for almost any product to be sold or bought. As Americans, we place a significant amount of stress on our property. For instance, look at how we are raised as children. We are taught to have a certain pride in our property, especially our homes. This pride in our home and property is in contradiction to Eminent Domain. The reason for this is that the victims of Eminent Domain are forced to sell their homes which they had pride in. The disturbing fact here is that this happens often in the United States, the “land of the free”. In this country, we grow up taking history classes where we learn about our freedoms and how they were defended, and how we are supposed to be thankful for this level of freedom that no other country has. But in the background, this isn’t the case. We live in a country where we are told we are free to buy and sell our property as we please. In the case of Eminent Domain, this freedom is taken away, as we can become a victim.
The second aspect of this law that is concerning is the exact definition of “public use”. With the recent and ongoing expansion of this definition, the vague side of public use is seen. While the original intended use of Eminent Domain seemed sensible and necessary, the ever increasing power of the law tends to move into murky waters. While outsiders may see a blighted neighborhood that is a nuisance and eyesore, the inhabitants of this neighborhood see it as their home. The troubling predicament here is that the public good here can differ between the two groups, depending on where they are. Another trouble for this sort of situation is the costs and benefits of using Eminent Domain. Often times, the only aspect of this that is talked about is the benefits, such as the new factory that was constructed or other commercial or municipal buildings, but they leave out the discussion of the loss of affordable homes in the neighborhood. [2]
Where Eminent Domain truly crosses the line though is the specific targeting of certain groups when it is used. Often times, the areas that are targeted for Eminent Domain are not as random as they seem, as seen in both the Poletown and New London cases. Usually the targeted neighborhoods for large scale land acquisition are lower class neighborhoods that are inhabited by minorities. [3] In the case of Poletown, the Detroit neighborhood saw many African American and Polish immigrant families be forced from their property so that a new General Motors assembly plant could be put there, with the main reason being the new 6,500 jobs that the plant would bring while removing 3,400 people from their homes. [3] Likewise, in the New London case in Connecticut, a middle class neighborhood was affected by Eminent Domain when the land was given to Pfizer with the justification being new business as well. [3] In both these cases, the homes were not blighted, and but Eminent Domain still carried on. As seen, the majority of Eminent Domain cases involve groups of people that are easy to target. According to research done by Sandra Phillips and Marion Sillah, the groups that are often targeted are blacks, poor, and elderly people. [3] Using the data, it was determined that approximately 61% of the time poor people were the victims of eminent domain, compared to 54% for the elderly and 52% for the blacks. [3] While these numbers aren’t outright incriminating, it brings up an interesting point when considering that these percentages do not correspond proportionally to the percentages these groups make up in respect to the nation as a whole. For instance, blacks make up roughly 15% of the population of the United States, yet were affected 52% of the time by these Eminent Domain cases. [3] Likewise, the poor and elderly only make up a small percentage of the population of the United States, but they also accounted for significant amounts of cases of Eminent Domain. This research, along with previous cases of Eminent Domain, show just how the law is misused, often times targeting the most vulnerable groups in an area. This shown when looking at those who are affected, and it is interesting to note that very rarely are upper class neighborhoods targeted, but rather it is neighborhoods where the people don’t have the time, money, or capability to legally fight the condemnation of their property. The reason for this targeting is usually that these occupants cannot fight, allowing for an easy taking of the land by the government. Between the years of 1998 and 2002, roughly 40% of the cases between homeowners and the local government responsible for acquiring the land resulted in the homeowners winning. [3] This respectable win percentage shows that with proper legal backing, these cases are winnable, and can result in the land not being taken. Yet, more often than not, the homeowners do not have the means to fight the condemnation. The result is an easy target group which are evicted from their neighborhood in the name of public use.
In order to combine these issues with Eminent Domain and how it is misused, it is helpful to look at the issue sociologically. When looking at the situations, it is fairly clear why the law is used: to further the good of the neighborhood. While the cases of misuse of Eminent Domain often cite the same “public good” as the reasoning behind the land acquisition, the data shows a different story. Often times neighborhoods are cleared out because of blight, because the neighborhood just doesn’t look as pretty as it should. Other times, the area is cleared for use by a different group who the local government believes could use the land better. What the whole issue comes down to though is why are these specific groups involved in Eminent Domain cases so often? A big chunk of the reasoning here is that they are easy targets. As stated above, they don’t usually have the legal capabilities to fight the local government in court, making the land acquisition easy. Also, every person has their own opinion of what a “good neighborhood” looks like, based significantly on what they see in the media, and what they experience growing up. So when a “bad neighborhood” (that is, blighted) is slated to be taken, there is no argument from others as they only see a bad neighborhood being taken down, not a neighborhood that provides affordable housing to low income families. [2] Lastly, there is the idea of solidarity among citizens. We, as citizens and workers, want to see a nation of contributors and little to no free loaders. We want to see our nation at its best, with everyone working together and contributing to the common good. This idea of solidarity is jeopardized in the case of Eminent Domain, as people can see a poor neighborhood as a noncontributing group of people, whereas the new factory there would create more jobs, resulting in a better and stronger community, albeit one that has disregarded the poor.
To sum up why Eminent Domain is important, you just have to look at how society has shaped us. In many cases, Eminent Domain creates a better neighborhood by utilizing land for the common good, but every now and then it is misused, leaving the homeowners feeling helpless.
1: http://www.mlive.com/opinion/muskegon/index.ssf/2011/04/george_will_sign_of_our_times.html?mobRedir=false
2: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0728.pdf
3: http://www.housingeducators.org/Journals/H%20&%20S%20Vol_36_No_1_A_House_is_Not_a_Home_Effect_of_Eminent_Domain_Abuse_on_the_Poor_African_Americans_and_the_Elderly.pdf
Sociology 