What Is Property? Property Is Theft:* the Lack of Social Justice in U.S. Eminent Domain Law

By Jackson, Janet Thompson | St. John's Law Review, Winter 2010 | Go to article overview

What Is Property? Property Is Theft:* the Lack of Social Justice in U.S. Eminent Domain Law


Jackson, Janet Thompson, St. John's Law Review


INTRODUCTION

The individual right of property is not simply an economic right .... Individual property rights are also about selfexpression, self-governance, belonging, and civic participation. A proper theory of constitutional protection of property should therefore be concerned about possible abuse of government power when cities condemn land, especially residential land, to enable projects whose benefits redound substantially to private entities. Monetary compensation, even when it satisfies the constitutional requirement of being "just," is not always enough to make the dispossessed landowner whole.1

This is not an article against eminent domain per se. In fact, when used responsibly, the power of eminent domain can produce economic and social benefits for a community and residents within the community. When, however, a government abuses its power of eminent domain, the economic and social costs to the affected individuals and neighborhoods, combined with the moral costs, far outweigh the benefits. When that abuse occurs, the government, and often the courts, have failed in their obligation to create and maintain a just social system.

This Article contends that social justice is largely absent in eminent domain law, particularly in the context of blight removal2 and economic development condemnations. Government takings too often result in an undue burden on poor people and communities of color in a way that resembles Discovery-era takings of land from American Indians. In the periods of colonization and western expansion of the United States, as well as in recent takings, the lack of social justice has had a profound effect: the disproportionate burden and exploitation of people who have the fewest resources - legally, politically, or economically - with which to resist the intrusion of eminent domain. Rooted in a historical framework of social justice, this Article examines the pervasive injustice in the realm of eminent domain. Specifically, the Article critiques the too often unchecked power of governments3 to declare neighborhoods "blighted," or merely in need of revitalization, so that jurisdictions can hand the land over to private entities for "better" uses. Such action divorces eminent domain from principles of social justice in a way that is inconsistent with the values upon which American society purports to function.

Socrates once pondered, "justice, if only we knew what it was."4 When we add the modifier social the task becomes more challenging. What do we mean by the term social justice, and how does that concept fit within American jurisprudence? More to the point, to what extent do we find social justice reflected in American property jurisprudence and in the arena of eminent domain? Lawyers, politicians, activists, theologians, and everyday citizens use the term social justice to call for legal, political, and social change. One would think that a phrase so ubiquitous would have a common meaning, but such is not the case. Still, most people claim to know justice when they see it. But rather than some absolute meaning, judgments about that ideal tend to reflect the image of the seeker looking in the mirror. Moreover, notions of what should be done in the name of justice tend to change as society changes. Despite such daunting considerations, it is imperative that we examine the principle of social justice in the context of U.S. eminent domain law so that we can determine whether current eminent domain law upholds or undermines our country's commitment to justice.

The first part of this Article examines private property rights and the tension between individual and governmental interests. The second part explores the ideals and evolution of justice and social justice. This Section gives historical account of justice and social justice to provide a framework for those principles as they relate to eminent domain law. Part III looks at the introduction of social justice into American jurisprudence and addresses two ways in which social justice has been advanced in the United States: through social movements and through legal reform. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

What Is Property? Property Is Theft:* the Lack of Social Justice in U.S. Eminent Domain Law
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.