Debbie Becher: Private property and public power: eminent domain in Philadelphia

Abstract

Since the 2005 US Supreme Court Case Kelo v. City of New London, the idea of taking property for private development has been heavily debated and criticised in the USA. Becher distinguishes two main school of criticism to the application of the power of eminent domain to implement development planning. The first is the libertarian approach, which basically says that private property is sanctuary and eminent domain shall never be used to transfer property to another private owner. A taking must be justified by a public use, which means that the actual land use must remain in the hands of public authorities. A second approach is what Becher calls the ‘left explanation’, which points to the fact that authorities predominantly use eminent domain powers in the area populated by the poor. Poor people are so the primary ‘victims’ of eminent domain. Eminent domain is the instrument by which people are displaced to accommodate gentrification and neoliberal development projects and the poor are better off if eminent domain powers will be limited. Both approaches are, according to Becher, not very well founded in the opinions Americans actually hold if it comes to the real existing practice of the use of eminent domain. The opinions are mostly based on hypothetical examples and general principles. Using an approach in legal sociology, Becher fills this gap with an extensive case study of the practice of eminent domain in the City of Philadelphia. At the opening chapter, the author indicates that she expects that actual Americans hold more refined ideas than the libertarian and left explanations suggest. Moreover, she indicates that the protection of investment by government is a much more important principle that must underlie the practice of eminent domain. Becher defines investment as ‘the sacrifice of any kind of value in the hope of future benefits’ (p. 18). A pluralist conception of value is used ‘including money, social networks, material goods, wisdom, love, and skill’ (p. 18). Philadelphia is chosen as a case study as it is a city in which there is a large distinction between neighbourhoods. Some of them are devastated or distressed, others are