Eminent Domain Takings and Economic Development: The Effect of State Restrictions on Metropolitan Area Economic Development

Abstract

The Supreme Court's Kelo decision upheld local governments’ right to use eminent domain in furtherance of an economic development plan under the premise that their public purpose includes the jobs and tax revenue generated by such developments. Following Kelo, 21 states effectively banned economic development as a justification for eminent domain condemnations. Whereas previous research examined the impact of eminent domain restrictions at the state level, this paper's focus is at the metropolitan-area level, where the inefficient underassembly of property that eminent domain is meant to correct is most acute. Difference-in-differences methods found that metropolitan areas in states that restrict the use of eminent domain experience statistically significant negative treatment effects on employment and earnings following the restrictions. As four Supreme Court justices have indicated a willingness to reconsider Kelo, these findings provide further insight into the economic assumptions supporting the ruling.

Keywords

eminent domain economic development metropolitan area employment and earnings

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ayotte

Smith

H. E.

, (Eds.). (2011). Research handbook on the economics of property law. Elgar.

Bartik

T. J.

(2012). The future of state and local economic development policy: What research is needed? Growth & Change, 43(4), 545–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2257.2012.00597.x

Berliner

(2003). Public power, private gain. Institute for Justice.

Brooks

Lutz

(2016). From today’s city to tomorrow’s city: An empirical investigation of urban land assembly. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 8(3), 69–105. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20130399

Byrne

P. F.

(2017). Have post-Kelo restrictions on eminent domain influenced state economic development? Economic Development Quarterly, 31(1), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242416671805

Callaway

Sant’Anna

P. H. C.

(2021). Difference-in-differences with multiple time periods. Journal of Econometrics, 225(2), 200–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.12.001

Card

Krueger

A. B.

(1994). Minimum wages and employment: A case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The American Economic Review, 84(4), 772–793. https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/2118030

Carpenter

D. M.

Ross

J. K.

(2010). Do restrictions on eminent domain harm economic development? Economic Development Quarterly, 24(2), 337–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242410370680

Castle Coalition. (2010). Enacted legislation since Kelo. http://www.castlecoalition.org

10.

Cunningham

(2013). Estimating the holdout problem in land assembly. [Working Paper]. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.

11.

Davies

(2006). Condemned prosperity: The use of eminent domain for private development may benefit district communities, but it blights the overall economy. FedGazette, 18(2), 14–17.

12.

Edmiston

K. D.

(2006). Workers’ compensation and state employment growth. Journal Of Regional Science, 46(1), 121–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4146.2006.00435.x

13.

Eychaner v. City of Chicago. 141 S. Ct. 2422 (2021).

14.

Florida

(2014). The creative class and economic development. Economic Development Quarterly, 28(3), 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242414541693

15.

Funderburg

Bartik

T. J.

Peters

A. H.

Fisher

P. S.

(2013). The impact of marginal business taxes on state manufacturing. Journal of Regional Science, 53(4), 557–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/jors.12031

16.

Gale

W. G.

Krupkin

Rueben

(2015). The relationship between taxes and growth at the state level: New evidence. National Tax Journal, 68(4), 919–942. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2015.4.02

17.

Garrett

T. A.

Rhine

R. M.

(2011). Economic freedom and employment growth in U.S. States. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 93(1), 1–18.

18.

Garrett

T. A.

Rothstein

(2007). The taking of prosperity? Kelo vs. New London and the economics of eminent domain. The Regional Economist, 4–9.

19.

Garrett

T. A.

Wagner

G. A.

Wheelock

D. C.

(2007). Regional disparities in the spatial correlation of state income growth, 1977–2002. Annals of Regional Science, 41(3), 601–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-007-0114-x

20.

Glaeser

(2015, July 25). They can take it if they want it. Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition, C5–C6.

21.

Goldstein v. Pataki. 516 F.3d 50, (2008).

22.

Goodman-Bacon

(2021). Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing. Journal of Econometrics, 225(2), 254–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2021.03.014

23.

Government Accountability Office. (2006). Eminent domain: Information about its uses and effect on property owners and communities is limited. U.S. Government Printing Office.

24.

Helms

L. J.

(1985). The effect of state and local taxes on economic growth: A time series-cross section approach. Review of Economics and Statistics, 67(4), 574–582. https://doi.org/10.2307/1924801

25.

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).

26.

Kerekes

Stansel

(2016). Takings and tax revenue: Fiscal impacts of eminent domain. Review of Law and Economics, 12(2), 275–309. https://doi.org/10.1515/rle-2015-0001

27.

Lanza

S. P.

Miceli

T. J.

Sirmans

C. F.

Diop

(2013). The use of eminent domain for economic development in the era of Kelo. Economic Development Quarterly, 27(4), 352–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242413493661

28.

Lopez

Jewell

R. T.

StateCampbell

N. D.

(2009). Pass a law, any law, fast! State legislative responses to the Kelo backlash. Review of Law and Economics, 5(1), 101–135. https://doi.org/10.2202/1555-5879.1268

29.

Miceli

T. J.

Segerson

(2021). Assessing Kelo’s legacy: Do increased taxes and new jobs justify use of eminent domain? Journal of Real Estate Finance & Economics, 63(2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-020-09772-7

30.

Miceli

T. J.

Sirmans

C. F.

(2007). The holdout problem, urban sprawl, and eminent domain. Journal of Housing Economics, 16(3–4), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2007.06.004

31.

Mogk

(2015, August 5). Eminent domain’s poletown success. Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition, A10.

32.

Munch

(1976). An economic analysis of eminent domain. Journal of Political Economy, 84(3), 473–498. https://doi.org/10.1086/260455

33.

Norwood v. Horney. (2006). 110 Ohio St.3d 353.

34.

Partridge

M. D.

Rickman

D. S.

(1997). State unemployment differentials: Equilibrium factors vs. differential employment growth. Growth and Change, 28(3), 360–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2257.00063

35.

Reed

W. R.

(2008). The robust relationship between taxes and U.S. state income growth. National Tax Journal, 61(1), 57–80. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2008.1.03

36.

Rios-Avila

Sant'Anna

P. H. C.

(2021). CSDID: Stata module for Callaway and Sant’Anna’s difference-in-differences. Statistical Software Components (SSC).

37.

Saginor

McDonald

J. F.

(2009). Eminent domain: A review of the issues. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 17(1), 3–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/10835547.2009.12090247

38.

Schiller

Trebing

(2003). Taking the measure of manufacturing. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Review, 24–37. 4th Quarter.

39.

Sharp

E. B.

Haider-Markel

(2008). At the invitation of the court: Eminent domain reform in state legislatures in the wake of the Kelo decision. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 38(3), 556–575. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjn006

40.

Smith

Z. O.

(2016, June 23). Thirteen years later: Nissan drives economic growth. Mississippi Today. https://mississippitoday.org/2016/06/23/thirteen-years-later-nissan-hailed-as-boon-to-economy/

41.

Somin

(2009). The limits of backlash: Assessing the political response to Kelo. Minnesota Law Review, 93, 2100–2178.

42.

Somin

(2023, May 5). What I learned from Justic Stevens’ papers on Kelo v. City of New London. The Volokh Conspiracy. https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/05/what-i-learned-from-justice-stevens-papers-on-kelo-v-city-of-new-london/

43.

Strange

W. C.

(1995). Information, holdouts, and land assembly. Journal of Urban Economics, 38(3), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1006/juec.1995.1036

44.

Turnbull

G. K.

Salvino

Tasto

(2018). Using eminent domain for economic development: Does it increase private sector employment? Review of Law and Economics, 14(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1515/rle-2016-0020

45.

Wasylenko

(1997). Taxation and economic development: The state of the economic literature. New England Economic Review, 37–53. March–April.

46.

(2015). The effect of eminent domain on private and mixed development on property values. Journal of Regional Analysis & Policy, 45(2), 173–187.