_fw.png)
Eminent domain allows the government to take private property for public use, with just compensation mandated by the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. Historically viewed as an inherent power, it was firmly recognized at the federal level in the late 19th century through cases like Kohl v. United States. The 2005 Kelo v. City of New London case expanded “public use” to include private economic development, sparking national debate over potential abuses and leading to state-level reforms to restrict this broadened definition.
New Hampshire responded to Kelo by passing legislation and a constitutional amendment preventing the use of eminent domain for private profit. However, the state still allows eminent domain for blight elimination, earning it a B+ from the Institute for Justice.
Eminent domain can disproportionately impact vulnerable communities, often targeting low-income or minority neighborhoods that lack resources to contest it. Critics argue that the threat of eminent domain skews negotiations, undermining genuine voluntary sales. Alternatives to eminent domain include regulatory reforms that promote development without displacing residents. The debate continues over balancing public good with property rights and ensuring fairness and protection at both state and federal levels.
Comments