Over the past couple of years one major issue that has been voiced regarding the Atlantic Yards project has been the law of Eminent Domain. One of the fundamental principles included in the United States Constitution, is that everyone has the right to own property, and that the government must do all that is in its power to protect this right. However, according to the law of Eminent Domain, which stems from the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, the government can legally seize private property for a “public use,” as long as they provide the owner with just compensation. Over the years, this law has been misrepresented and altered to include the fact that the government can seize land, not only for a public use, such as the construction of roads and railways, but also for a public purpose, which includes rebuilding blighted areas that have been underutilized.

Nicole Gelinas, author of the article, “Eminent Domain as Central Planning,” believes that in the case of the Atlantic Yards the government is overstepping its limits. She states that government officials believe that “central planning is superior to free-market competition.” It is their opinion that “their duty to design a perfect economy trumps their constituents’ right to hold private property.” They believe that an arena and high-rise buildings are better than a low-rise neighborhood, and are therefore invoking their power of Eminent Domain to achieve their goals. However, in reality, who’s to say which alternative is better than the other. While residents may believe that a low-rise community is better than one filled with high-rise office towers, developers may take the opposite view. She believes that the first step in combating this law, is to get rid of the term “underutilization” as a justification for taking ones property. If “underutilization” remains as a criteria of Eminent Domain, it will ultimately create a policy in which all property will require commercial development.

One part of her article that I found to be extremely interesting, was when she described how West Harlem owners won their court case. In order to prove that their neighborhood does not fall under the category of “blighted” and therefore does allow the government to seize their property under the law of Eminent Domain, the owners conducted a  study to show that their neighborhood was not blighted. They understood that the government would conduct a report showing that it was blighted and therefore believed that a good way to combat the government’s case was to create their own study. Furthermore, they provided a former government study showing that their neighborhood was being revitalized. However, after discussing this case, Gelinas correctly stated that property rights should not depend on the owner’s creativity to prove, but should be a law that is followed and kept without any hesitation.

One point concerning Eminent Domain, which Gelinas failed to mention, is in regards to the definition of “just compensation.” The question that remains is who gets to determine the amount of compensation that the government must pay the owners for their property? While the owners may believe that their property is worth more due to sentimental value, the government may believe that it is worth less because sentimental value is not included in the market price. This creates a battle between the government and residents, in which they can’t decide what the market value of the property really is. Furthermore, what happens if a family cannot find a home that suits their needs with the “just compensation” that they are offered? Besides for the fact that confiscating private property is wrong, there are no clear guidelines stating the grounds on which “just compensation” is to be determined.

At the end of the article, Galinas makes a great argument, which really goes to show you the destruction that Eminent Domain can cause. She states that if you walk through Prospect Heights you can finally see the decay that the government wants you to see. Land where historic buildings once stood are now vacant lots, leaving the area “gap-toothed.” The decay, however, was not caused by the market, rather it was brought about by the developer who urged the government to invoke its powers, just so they can make a profit.