The Politics of Eminent Domain

From False Choices to Community Benefits

Dados Bibliográficos

ID11670415
AutoresChristopher Niedt (Hofstra University, autor correspondente)
Ano2013
Volume34
Fascículo8
Páginas1047-1069
Data de publicação2013-08-28
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessNão
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoUrban Geography (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0272-3638 • E-ISSN: 1938-2847
EditoraTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/02723638.2013.819683
OpenAlexW2145406005
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas6
Referências citadas43

Large-scale urban redevelopment projects catalyze moments of peril and opportunity. In the wake of the United States Supreme Court's Kelo v. New London decision affirming economic development as a public use under the takings clause of the Constitution, these perils and opportunities have again become a site of major contestation. An unusual alliance of libertarian property-rights ideologues and civil-rights organizations has joined forces to challenge the use of eminent domain in urban economic development. In this article, I analyze the history of these alliances and their implicit reinforcement of deeply reactionary constructions of property. I conclude with an evaluation of two emergent models—community benefit agreements and community equity shares—that provide promising community tools for alternatives to homeowner rule and neoliberal urban renewal

Affordable housing · Constitution · Economic growth · Economics · Eminent Domain · Equity (law · Ideology · Law and economics · Political science · Politics · Property rights · Public use · Reactionary · Redevelopment · Sociology · Supreme court · Housing, Finance, and Neoliberalism · Law · Urban and Rural Development Challenges · Urban Planning and Governance