FINAL_FY14_Eminent-Domain-Report

Panelists’ Written Statements 47The negative impact of eminent domain on minorities is partially offset by compensation payments.However, compensation often falls far short of fully making up for all the losses suffered by victims ofeminent domain. Many studies find that property owners often do not even get the “fair market value” 54compensation required by the Supreme Court. 55 Undercompensation is particularly likely in the case of“low value” properties of the kind often occupied by poor minority group members. 56 Even when fairmarket value compensation is paid, owners still are not compensated for the loss of the “subjectivevalue” they attach to their property over and above its market valuation. 57 Subjective value includes suchelements as community ties and business good will that are often lost when victims of eminent domainare forced to move their homes or businesses.Today, the disproportionate targeting of minorities is less likely to be caused by old-fashioned racialprejudice than in the urban renewal era, and more likely to be the result of the political weakness ofthese groups. 58 That weakness is exacerbated by relatively high poverty rates. Some 25.8 percent ofblacks and 25.3 percent of Hispanics have incomes below the poverty line, compared to 9.4 percent ofwhites and 12.5 percent of Asian-Americans. 59 Social science confirms the common sense view that thepoor, on average, have far less political influence than more affluent citizens. 60Racial prejudice may still be at work in so far as public opinion is less inclined to oppose takings thatharm people of different racial or ethnic groups. Ethnocentric bias influences public opinion on a varietyof issues, and often affects the views of people who are not actively hostile to minorities but merely lessconcerned about their welfare than that of members of their own group. 61 There is a need for moreresearch on the extent to which such “ethnocentrism” influences public opinion and policy on eminentdomain. Even if present racial bias plays relatively little role in selecting targets for condemnation, pastracial injustice is undeniably one of the causes of the poverty and political weakness that make blacksand some other minorities vulnerable to takings.54 See, e.g., Kirby Forest Indus. Inc. v. United States, 467 U.S. 1, 10 (1984).55 See Thomas Mitchell, et al., Forced Sale Risk: Class, Race, and the “Double Discount,” 37 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 589, 630-38 (2010) (citing numerous studies showing undercompensation); Yun-chien Chang, An Empirical Study of CompensationPaid in Eminent Domain Settlements: New York City 1990-2002, 39 J. LEGAL STUD. 201 (2010) (finding systematicundercompensation in the majority of New York City cases).56 See Chang, An Empirical Study of Compensation.57 Somin, Grasping Hand at 215-16.58 See id. at 190-203 (explaining why the politically weak are likely to be targeted for condemnation).59 CENSUS BUREAU, INCOME, POVERTY, AND HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE IN THE UNITED STATES: 2009 16 (Sept. 2010),available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf.60 See, e.g., LARRY BARTELS, UNEQUAL DEMOCRACY (2010); Martin Gilens, Inequality and Democratic Responsiveness, 69PUB. OPINION Q. 778 (2005).61 See generally DONALD KINDER & CINDY KAM, US AGAINST THEM: ETHNOCENTRIC FOUNDATIONS OF AMERICAN PUBLICOPINION (2009).