Balkinization: Oppression, the 4th of July and Kelo

Oppression, the 4th of July and Kelo

Mark Graber

The Fourth of July may be a difficult holiday for those with pacifist tendencies. Not the least of the bad practices associated with independence day is the American tendency to define oppression downwards. Might Americans have been better off forming an independent nation in 1776. Of course. But whether the level of injustice justified shooting a lot of people strikes me as dubious, at best. And worse, when we teach our children that conditions in 1776 were so oppressive as to justify violence, they are inclined to think of oppression indiscriminately.

Consider the recent Kelo case, the one in which a narrow Supreme Court majority declared that localities could condemn land for economic redevelopment. Cries of oppression have gone up from the opposition. Lost in the debate have been two simple facts. First, the compensation paid to the homeowners was substantially more than their houses and land were worth on the market. Second, the vast majority of the homeowners voluntarily took the deal, preferred to buy bigger homes or homes in better neighborhoods to remaining where they were. So much for the nonsense in Justice Thomas's dissent about the policy being racist, when it turns out that the vast majority of persons of color living in the relevant neighborhood were pleased that the government paid a premium for the land and houses. Now, it may be unconstitutional for the government to do this or to require all homeowners to accept the deal (though the constant claim that they wanted to preserve their neighborhoods is, again, utter nonsense, since almost all of the neighbors preferred the government deal). Still, it is not oppressive for government to require people to sell land at above market prices when the vast majority of the neighborhood thinks they are getting a good deal.

Posted 8:47 AM by Mark Graber [link]

Comments:

Do you think then, that we owe Britain some reparations for our depredations against them? It seems to me that if you are correct and we responded with unwarranted force and violence, that we should be held liable for it.

# posted by

Al Maviva : 1:51 PM

not to disagree with you, mark, but even when you consider the fact that the government is paying above market value for each home, there is an intrinsic value each of us places in our homes, especially if we have owned them for long periods of time, that is not reflected in market value. i understand that most people took the deal, and perhaps got a better home in the process. i understand that many people left the neighborhood. that still doesn't satisfy those persons who had a lifetime of emotions invested in their homes, who simply did not want to leave at any price.

# posted by

phg : 5:06 PM

There is something special about a home, especially one in a family for generations, that is not really remarked upon by the author. A liberal blog should understand that certain things are not just a matter of dollar and cents.

As to the Thomas dig, does the author deny that economic development is basically not controlled by the weaker members of society, but special interests? In NYC, for instance, the poor has been harmed by such "development," including so called urban renewal.

There is a certain strident nature to posts lately that are a bit disconcerting.

# posted by

Joe : 5:39 PM

I believe that the point about "fair" economic compensation was to note that the government was apparently not attempting to undercut even the minority of holdouts for this move request, since that was a nagging suspicion in much of the public debate.

I have felt sentimental attachment to more than past homes, but to elementary school buildings, local forests and fields, favorite pizza shops, etc. Sure, nobody enjoys seeing a landmark of emotional value to them displaced for the purported hope of "progress" by local government decree, but it is not unusual for this to occur when seems reasonable in our history. Otherwise, emotional attachments to any landmark or plot could instantly doom any potential project of hopeful worth. I've seen plenty of instances where historical, cultural or similar attachments to areas have derailed or forced compromise for development proposals.

Notably, this government's plan for growth (after demolition) was apparently considered reasonable - in terms of future worth - by most courts involved in this situation. Balancing the desire to live somewhere with government interest to be economically viable is likely not a question of merely economics, true, though I've seen local cases where holdouts were literally surrounded by the larger developments and ended up looking rather oddly placed.

# posted by

ooofest : 1:24 PM

"For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:"

Still applies, see the case of Lon Horiuchi.

With respect to "fair compensation", it seems obvious that, first of all, most owners sold because they saw no hope of success in opposing the confiscation of their property, and that, second, the "market" is a venue of voluntary exchange; The notion that you can EVER compell a sale, and yet still pay "market value", is nonsense on stilts. Market value, by definition, is the price at which the sale would have gone through without coercion.

# posted by

Brett : 9:28 PM