Panelists’ Written Statements 53ignores these exercises of eminent domain for highway construction and other public projects, whileprohibiting economic development that has the potential to aid low income people.The case against eminent domain here has been advanced largely on the basis of advocacy by libertarianorganizations, which broadly oppose the use of eminent domain because they value private propertymore highly than local democracy. The evidence that that they marshal, such as the lurid Victimizing theVulnerable, presents ambiguous data in highly colored language. That study shows no more than thatcommunities are somewhat more likely to pursue redevelopment in poorer areas than in more affluentareas. There is no consideration of the public benefits to be gained from these projects, the distributionof such benefits, or the scope or character of citizen participation in decision making. Nonetheless, thestudy leaps to the astounding conclusion that, “The only real solution is prohibiting the use of eminentdomain for private development to protect the constitutional rights of all citizens,….” 6 Thus, theyoppose condemnation of the property of our largest corporations as much as that of the mosteconomically marginal minority individual. The concern for the latter seems frankly tactical, since theyknow that they would get little hearing in many quarters simply advocating to reduce the scope of statelegislative power over private property.If one were worried about disproportionate impacts of eminent domain on the poor or minorities, thereare remedies that would address that directly. One might provide more procedural protections orcompensation to residents than to commercial property owners. One could mandate minimum paymentsto tenants, who normally receive no compensation when rental housing is condemned. The Fair HousingAct could be amended to clarify that it applies to condemnation of residences without regard to intent. 7These ideas are all worthy of study but have not been because they do not meet the agenda of thelibertarian groups driving the issue, which is to limit further the powers of government in favor ofprivate capital. Proponents rather would deprive the DC government of the power to use eminentdomain to build a supermarket in Anacostia. In a world of growing economic inequality, in a politicalclimate demanding cutting taxes as well as medical and pension benefits, it is unfortunate we arespending this time discussing the non-issue of the effects of eminent domain on minorities.6 DICK M. CARPENTER & JOHN K. ROSS, INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE, VICTIMIZING THE VULNERABLE: THE DEMOGRAPHICS OFEMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE 7 (June 2007).7 Edward A. Imperatore, Discriminatory Condemnations and the Fair Housing Act, 96 GEO. L.J. 1027 (2008).
54 The Civil Rights Implications of <strong>Eminent</strong> <strong>Domain</strong> AbuseHilary O. Shelton, Director, NAACP Washington Bureau & Senior Vice-President for Advocacyand PolicyThe Civil Rights Implications of <strong>Eminent</strong> <strong>Domain</strong> AbuseThank you, Chairman Castro and ladies and gentlemen of the Commission for inviting me here today totalk about property rights and the civil rights implications of eminent domain abuse.My name is Hilary Shelton and I am the Director of the NAACP Washington Bureau and the Senior VPfor Advocacy and Policy. The NAACP is our Nation’s oldest, largest and most widely recognizedgrassroots-based civil rights organization. We currently have more than 2,200 units in every state in ourcountry. The NAACP Washington Bureau is our national public policy and federal legislative advocacyarm.Given our Nation’s sad history of racial prejudice, racism, bigotry, and a basic disregard on the part oftoo many elected and appointed officials to the concerns and rights of racial and ethnic minorityAmericans, it should come as no surprise that eminent domain has been misused for centuries againstAfrican Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities, and the economically disadvantaged, at highlydisproportionate rates.Although nobody knows the exact numbers of people displaced through eminent domain across thenation, everyone seems to agree that African Americans are disproportionately affected. One sourcecites that since World War II, it is estimated that between 3 and 4 million Americans have been forciblydisplaced from their homes as a result of urban renewal takings. It should surprise nobody that a vastmajority of these people are racial and ethnic minorities. 1 Another says that ““[b]etween 1949 and1973 … 2,532 projects were carried out in 992 cities that displaced one million people, two-thirds ofthem African American,” making African Americans, “five times more likely to be displaced than theyshould have been given their numbers in the population. 2 “The NAACP has a deeply held concern that the newly sanctioned expansion of the use of eminentdomain to allow the government or its designee to take property simply by asserting that it can put theproperty to a higher use, as was approved by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2005 Kelo v. City of NewLondon decision, will systemically sanction easier transfers of property, wealth, and community stabilityfrom those with less resources to those with more.The history of eminent domain is rife with abuse specifically targeting racial and ethnic minority andpoor neighborhoods. Indeed, the displacement of African Americans and urban renewal projects are sointertwined that “urban renewal” was often referred to as “black removal.” Sadly, racial and ethnicminorities are not just affected more often by the exercise of eminent domain power, but we are almostalways affected differently and more profoundly.1 David Bieto and Ilya Somin, Battle Over <strong>Eminent</strong> <strong>Domain</strong> is Another Civil Rights Issue, THE KANSAS CITY STAR, Apr. 27,2007.2 Mindy Fullilove, What is the Price of the Commons? February 2007.
Change language