FINAL_FY14_Eminent-Domain-Report

ivThe Civil Rights Implications of Eminent Domain Abuseindividuals’ private property and transfer it to others for the purpose of private economic redevelopment.It concluded that private economic development, similarly to the construction of roads, bridges, parks,public buildings, or other infrastructure, qualified as a permissible “public use.”In their separate dissents in Kelo, Justices O’Connor and Thomas derided the majority’s understandingof the concept of “public use” and predicted that communities with less power than the business interestsseeking their property would be disproportionately harmed by eminent domain abuse. 8 A 2007 studycommissioned by the Institute for Justice, Victimizing the Vulnerable: The Demographics of EminentDomain Abuse, appears to confirm the Justices’ concerns, finding a disparate impact on the communitiesleast capable of defending themselves against takings. “Taken together, more residents in areas targetedby eminent domain—as compared to those in surrounding communities—are ethnic or racial minorities,have completed significantly less education, live on significantly less income, and significantly more ofthem live at or below the federal poverty line.” 9On August 12, 2011, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights convened a briefing to discuss these issues.The bipartisan agency sought and invited speakers of varying perspectives, including scholarsknowledgeable about the history of eminent domain abuse, its impact on poor and minoritycommunities, and any implications for civil rights; federal or state legislators who had exerted effort tocurb the practice; and representatives knowledgeable about allegations of eminent domain abuse inparticular localities.At the time of the briefing, 43 10 states had enacted laws attempting to limit the scope of eminent domainpower sanctioned by Kelo, but some scholars argue that those laws contain loopholes that “continue topermit the exact same kinds of condemnations under the guise of alleviating ‘blight’—a concept definedso broadly that virtually any property the government covets can be declared ‘blighted.’” 118 See, e.g., id. at 521 (Thomas, J., dissenting) (“Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is badenough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that theselosses will fall disproportionately on poor communities.”); see also id. at 505 (O’Connor, J., dissenting).9 Carpenter and Ross, Victimizing the Vulnerable, p. 7.10 Although the number was 43 when the Commission held its briefing on August 12, 2011, it has increased to 44 since then.11 See, e.g., Beito and Somin, Battle Over Eminent Domain.