This Article proposes a paradigm shift in takings law, namely “inclusionary eminent domain.” This new normative concept provides a framework that molds eminent domain takings and economic redevelopment into an inclusionary land assembly model equipped with multiple tools to help guide municipalities, private developers and communities construct or preserve affordable housing developments. The tools to achieve this include Community Benefit Agreements (“CBAs”), Land Assembly Districts (“LADs”), Community Development Corporations (“CDCs”), Land Banks (“LABs”), Community Land Trusts (“CLTs”) and Neighborhood Improvement Districts (“NIDs”). The origin of the concept derives from the zoning law context, where exclusionary zoning in the suburbs excluded affordable housing for the poor. Courts intervened, applying exclusionary zoning doctrines, which led to the enactment of inclusionary zoning programs to achieve a fair share of housing. Exclusionary eminent domain in urban areas, similarly, has displaced and decreased the stock of or denied access to affordable housing through the power of takings. Under an exclusionary eminent domain doctrine, courts would apply heightened review to condemnations in a locality that has less than its fair share of affordable housing. But in a post-Kelo era of takings, doctrinal solutions may not be enough. Analogous to inclusionary zoning, inclusionary eminent domain helps us rethink how to fix the exclusionary eminent domain phenomenon that displaces low-income residents. Indeed, this Article moves us beyond the doctrinal muddle and instead incorporates both the intellectual musings of takings and zoning law with an assessment of how innovative tools can be practically applied to construct and preserve affordable housing in eminent domain takings for economic redevelopment.

In an effort to understand the reasons for and consequences of the political backlash to the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. New London, this book brings together a diverse group of scholars and practitioners who explore the uses and abuses of eminent domain and regulatory takings.

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.

Evicted! is a practical and critical look at the vulnerability of Americans' property rights to eminent domain abuse since the Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo decision. The 2005 Supreme Court decision Kelo v. City of New London, which upheld the taking of an individual's home by local government for the sake of private development, unleashed a firestorm of controversy. The backlash against eminent domain cuts across partisan, ideological, and racial lines, with 4 out of 5 Americans opposing Kelo. Critics of Kelo claim that it represents a radical departure in the law, putting every homeowner in jeopardy of dispossession by government at the service of corporate interests. But are property rights and eminent domain truly in mortal conflict? Written for general readers, property owners, and local government officials seeking to understand the implications of Kelo for eminent domain and property law, Evicted! cuts through all the hype and hysteria surrounding Kelo and argues that the alleged wave of eminent domain abuse is mostly a myth. Evicted! describes what property rights are, why the law protects them, and how eminent domain really works. Schultz shows that Kelo did not make new law but only broadened Supreme Court precedents, and he refutes claims that Kelo has opened the way to widespread eminent domain abuse. Nevertheless, the author identifies certain legislative changes that are needed at the local, state, and national levels to better protect individual property owners when corporate thugs and corrupt government officials occasionally gang up against them.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.