The contributors in this volume address the fundamental relationship between the state and its citizens, and among the people themselves. Discussion centers on a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v. City of New London. This case involved the use of eminent domain power to acquire private property for purposes of transferring it by the State to another private party that would make "better" economic use of the land. This type of state action has been identified as an "economic development taking". In the Kelo case, the Court held that the action was legal within provisions of the US Constitution but the opinion was contentious among some of the Justices and has been met with significant negative outcry from the public. The Kelo case and the public debate arising in its aftermath give cause to assess the legal landscape related to the ability of government to fairly balance the tension between private property and the public interest. The tension and the need to successfully strike a balance are not unique to any one country or any one political system. From the United States to the United Kingdom, to the People's Republic of China, property and its legal regulation are of prime importance to matters of economic development and civic institution building. The Kelo decision, therefore, explores a rich set of legal principles with broad applicability.

News media reports on eminent domain often highlight outrage and heated protest. But these accounts, Debbie Becher finds, obscure a much more complex reality of how Americans understand property. Private Property and Public Power presents the first comprehensive study of a city's acquisitions, exploring how and why Philadelphia took properties between 1992 and 2007 for private redevelopment. Becher uses original data-collected from city offices and interviews with over a hundred residents, business owners, community leaders, government representatives, attorneys, and appraisers-to explore how eminent domain really works. Surprisingly, the city took over 4,000 private properties, and these takings rarely provoked opposition. When conflicts did arise, community residents, businesses, and politicians all appealed to a shared notion of investment to justify their arguments about policy. It is this social conception of property as an investment of value, committed over time, that government is responsible for protecting. Becher's findings stand in stark contrast to the views of libertarian and left-leaning activists and academics, but recognizing property as investment, she argues, may offer a solid foundation for more progressive urban policies.

The contributors in this volume address the fundamental relationship between the state and its citizens, and among the people themselves. Discussion centers on a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v. City of New London. This case involved the use of eminent domain power to acquire private property for purposes of transferring it by the State to another private party that would make "better" economic use of the land. This type of state action has been identified as an "economic development taking". In the Kelo case, the Court held that the action was legal within provisions of the US Constitution but the opinion was contentious among some of the Justices and has been met with significant negative outcry from the public. The Kelo case and the public debate arising in its aftermath give cause to assess the legal landscape related to the ability of government to fairly balance the tension between private property and the public interest. The tension and the need to successfully strike a balance are not unique to any one country or any one political system. From the United States to the United Kingdom, to the People's Republic of China, property and its legal regulation are of prime importance to matters of economic development and civic institution building. The Kelo decision, therefore, explores a rich set of legal principles with broad applicability.

The contributors in this volume address the fundamental relationship between the state and its citizens, and among the people themselves. Discussion centers on a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v. City of New London. This case involved the use of eminent domain power to acquire private property for purposes of transferring it by the State to another private party that would make "better" economic use of the land. This type of state action has been identified as an "economic development taking". In the Kelo case, the Court held that the action was legal within provisions of the US Constitution but the opinion was contentious among some of the Justices and has been met with significant negative outcry from the public. The Kelo case and the public debate arising in its aftermath give cause to assess the legal landscape related to the ability of government to fairly balance the tension between private property and the public interest. The tension and the need to successfully strike a balance are not unique to any one country or any one political system. From the United States to the United Kingdom, to the People's Republic of China, property and its legal regulation are of prime importance to matters of economic development and civic institution building. The Kelo decision, therefore, explores a rich set of legal principles with broad applicability.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that the city of New London, Connecticut, could condemn fifteen residential properties in order to transfer them to a new private owner. Although the Fifth Amendment only permits the taking of private property for “public use,” the Court ruled that the transfer of condemned land to private parties for “economic development” is permitted by the Constitution—even if the government cannot prove that the expected development will ever actually happen. The Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London empowered the grasping hand of the state at the expense of the invisible hand of the market. In this detailed study of one of the most controversial Supreme Court cases in modern times, Ilya Somin argues that Kelo was a grave error. Economic development and “blight” condemnations are unconstitutional under both originalist and most “living constitution” theories of legal interpretation. They also victimize the poor and the politically weak for the benefit of powerful interest groups and often destroy more economic value than they create. Kelo itself exemplifies these patterns. The residents targeted for condemnation lacked the influence needed to combat the formidable government and corporate interests arrayed against them. Moreover, the city’s poorly conceived development plan ultimately failed: the condemned land lies empty to this day, occupied only by feral cats. The Supreme Court’s unpopular ruling triggered an unprecedented political reaction, with forty-five states passing new laws intended to limit the use of eminent domain. But many of the new laws impose few or no genuine constraints on takings. The Kelo backlash led to significant progress, but not nearly as much as it may have seemed. Despite its outcome, the closely divided 5-4 ruling shattered what many believed to be a consensus that virtually any condemnation qualifies as a public use under the Fifth Amendment. It also showed that there is widespread public opposition to eminent domain abuse. With controversy over takings sure to continue, The Grasping Hand offers the first book-length analysis of Kelo by a legal scholar, alongside a broader history of the dispute over public use and eminent domain and an evaluation of options for reform.

The Economics of Eminent Domain: Private Property, Public Use, and Just Compensation presents an overview of the economics of eminent domain. Beginning with a brief review of the relevant case law for both physical acquisitions and for regulatory takings, the authors survey the economics literature examining eminent domain.

Examination of the concept of "takings" in the context of international law and international investment agreements. It is an analysis of the law relating to the takings of foreign property by host countries and of the clauses International Investment Agreements' seeking to provide protection against such takings. It deals with the development of the law and considers both what possible protection against governmental interference can be given by international instruments and under what conditions and in which manner a State retains, under international law, the freedom to take action that may affect foreign property in the interests of its economic development.

Eminent domain entered the awareness of many Americans with the recent U.S. Supreme Court case Kelo v. New London. Across the political spectrum, people were outraged when the Court majority said that a local government may transfer property from one private party to another under the ''public use'' clause of the Constitution, for the sake of ''economic development. Carla T. Main - who in the past, as a lawyer, has represented the condemning authorities in eminent domain cases - examines how property rights in America have come to be so weak, tracing the history of eminent domain from the Revolutionary War to the Kelo case. But the heart of Bulldozed is a story of how eminent domain has affected an American family and the small-town community where they have lived and worked for decades. In the 1940s, Pappy and Isabel Gore established a shrimp processing plant in Freeport, Texas. Three generations of Gores built Western Seafood into a thriving business that stood up to fierce competition and market flux. But Freeport was struggling, and city officials decided that a private yacht marina on the Old Brazos River might save it. They would use eminent domain to take the Gores' waterfront property and hand it over to the developer, an heir of a legendary Texas oil family, in a risky sweetheart deal. For three years, the Gores resisted the taking with every ounce of strength they had. Around them, the fabric of the community unraveled as friends and neighbors took sides. Bulldozed vividly recounts the Gores' fight with city hall, and at the same time ponders larger questions of what property rights mean today and who among us is entitled to hold on to the American Dream.