Audience Participation

Stand back . . . I’m going to talk law. I need some assistance, and not just from other attorneys, but from any and all readers.

I’m thinking about writing my thesis paper on the after effects of government takings and condemnations. Just to give you some basic info, there are 2 types of government takings – blight removal, and economic redevelopment. In 2005, a case went before the United States Supreme Court over the condemnation of two homes that were in good shape, had been in a family for years, and were not in crime-driven areas. The homes were taken by the government so that an office park could be built as part of a city-wide plan for economic redevelopment. So, there were two legitimate sides to the story – people lost their homes, but there was a genuine probability that the entire city (which was very economically challenged) would benefit.

There was a huge reaction to this case from the public. People were, to put it simply, pissed. 43 out of 50 states following this case either made statutory changes, or went so far as to make amendments to their respective constitutions to protect their own citizens from a similar outcome. Some of them put harsher restrictions on the use of economic redevelopment takings by the state, and some of them got rid of them altogether. Only Florida, of the 43 states who acted after this case, disallowed both economic redevelopment and blight removal condemnations.

After such a movement against economic redevelopment, there has been more of a turn to blight removal. Here is where the crux of my research will be focused. When the government takes personal property, it must pay the owner fair and just compensation. But when you are in an urban slum, and your property is taken – what are you paid? The fair market value of a slum. What can you do with that kind of money? Buy into another slum. My problem is that government takings function with the purpose of cleaning places up, or making general improvements, but at the end of the day, they only serve to further a continuous circle. A statement from a Supreme Court justice in another case is what really set me off down this road – he talked about how the purpose of condemnation was equality, that no citizens deserve to live in those types of conditions, and thus it falls to the state to take them out of that situation. I found it to be fairly naïve – although people were removed from one slum, they weren’t set up in any way to go anywhere else. Furthermore, it struck me that when most states disallowed economic redevelopment takings, yet still allowed blight removal, it was a shocking statement as to how they valued their own citizens. Effectively, I see that as saying the middle class was worth protecting from governmental takings, but the lowest classes were not. Which may not be so much a reflection on the bill writers as the voting turnout, but still, it’s the effect nonetheless. Even more troubling, as time has progressed, we’ve seen a movement away from the traditional definition of blight. More and more we are seeing properties taken by the government that would not have been called a “blight” in the past, but in the absence of an economic redevelopment option, have been shoe-horned in.

So, here is where you come in, dear reader. I’d appreciate some feedback. Just give me some thoughts. If you want more information, let me know. Respond to something, anything. Pass it on to others. It may spur me on in different directions, or give me new things to think about – I do have 30 pages to fill after all! I’m very interested to see if people share my concerns, or what other views may be. Government takings may be a necessary evil in some circumstances, and may serve genuine public benefits that privatized ownership may not – but on the flip side, there are circumstances where the effects may be troublesome.

Thanks for any feedback you can give!

Sarcasmo

Currently Excited About: not about writing a 30 page paper, that's for damn sure.