“Free market may be imperfect, but they’re far better than the alternative—the blight of arbitrary government control and the uncertainty that it creates.” Nicole Gelinas conveys this message throughout her article, Eminent Domain as Central Planning. Over the past few years, the use of eminent domain in central planning has heightened greatly, but its outcome is not necessarily as beneficial as many may assume. Gelinas brings to light the stark reality that “the [government’s] duty to design a perfect economy trumps…constituents’ right to hold private property.” What is even worse is that a perfect economy is rarely the realized result.
According to the US Constitution, the government can legally seize property if it is intended for “public use” and only if “just compensation” is given. Generally, “blighted” property is grounds for public seizure. Over the years, however, the definitions of each requirement have changed, broadened, and have become much more subjective. According to Gelinas, in the 1930s, “blighted” meant “families and children dying from rampant fires and pestilence in tuberculosis-ridden firetraps.” By 2006, this definition encompass isolated graffiti, cracked sidewalks, and underutilization of land that does not “generate the social and economic benefits the government desires.” This has allowed for many more opportunities to seize land that otherwise would have been left in private hands. More importantly, such subjective and arbitrary decisions actually violate due process, according to Gelinas—one of many reasons that eminent domain should not be too freely exercised.
Although there seems to be a trend towards increasing use of eminent domain for positive economic benefits, there are many examples that portray quite a different reality. Gelinas points to multiple government projects—the Atlantic Yards and rows of homes slated for demolition, the Spalding Building now abandoned, vacant lots where lively businesses once stood—where land is now decaying due to the governments impeding of genuine private improvement. It is ironic that central planning is perceived to be superior to free-market competition if these are some of its results. To remedy this, Gelinas advocates the state should not interfere in people’s property.
If the government does not intervene, can any progress be made? Gelinas proposes the organic growth of communities, rather than large-scale public intervention. The government should provide public necessities such as policing, infrastructure and the like. In turn, this will allow local residents to constantly improve their communities, albeit slowly. Unfortunately, the opposite has been occurring. In Willets Point, for example, the city “is starving the private sector of public resources,” making it much easier to deem areas “blighted” and exercise eminent domain.
After many weeks of reading about public housing and government intervention in the economy, it would be wrong to say that central planning is completely bad. Gelinas’s article, however, made me realize that the broadening jurisdiction of eminent domain seems to be hurting neighborhoods more than it should be helping. Increasingly creative definitions are becoming the new central planning model, but this model may not be the best. I agree with Gelinas’s decision that clearer standards for the government’s power to seize property are necessary. The government should stick to providing communities with necessities and letting them better themselves slowly but surely.
