Posted on 02/16/2007 8:50:51 PM PST by Lorianne
Arlington, Va.—“Eminent domain has become what the founding fathers sought to prevent: a tool that takes from the poor and the politically weak to give to the rich and politically powerful,” concludes Dr. Mindy Fullilove in her new report released today titled, “Eminent Domain & African Americans: What is the Price of the Commons?”
Eminent Domain & African Americans is the first in a new series of independently authored reports published by the Institute for Justice, Perspectives on Eminent Domain Abuse, which will examine the different aspects of eminent domain abuse from the vantage point of noted national experts. The release of this inaugural report is particularly timely this month, as millions around the nation learn about African American history.
In this study, Dr. Fullilove, a research psychiatrist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute and a professor of clinical psychiatry and public health at Columbia University, examines the effects of eminent domain abuse on the African American community. Focusing specifically on the Federal Housing Act (FHA) of 1949, Dr. Fullilove finds that “[b]etween 1949 and 1973 … 2,532 projects were carried out in 992 cities that displaced one million people, two-thirds of them African American,” making blacks “five times more likely to be displaced than they should have been given their numbers in the population.”
Although urban renewal under the FHA was discontinued in 1973, Dr. Fullilove reported “the tools of urban renewal had been honed through 20 years of projects. Politicians and developers found that they could repackage eminent domain and government subsidies in many new ways, facilitating the taking of land for ‘higher uses.’”
Dr. Fullilove shares the story of David Jenkins—who lost his Philadelphia home to urban renewal in the 1950s—to illustrate the devastating impacts of forced displacement. “Within these neighborhoods there existed social, political, cultural, and economic networks that functioned for both individual and common good,” explains Dr. Fullilove. “These networks were the ‘commons’ of the residents, a system of complex relationships, shared activities, and common goals”—the loss of which cannot be replaced or remedied.
“What the government takes from people is not a home, with a small ‘h’, but Home in the largest sense of the word: a place in the world, a community, neighbors and services, a social and cultural milieu, an economic anchor that provides security during the ups and downs of life, a commons that sustains the group by offering shared goods and services,” continues Dr. Fullilove.
“Dr. Fullilove’s pioneering research reinforces the need for state and federal legislative reforms of eminent domain laws,” said Steven Anderson, director of the Castle Coalition, which helps homeowners nationwide fight eminent domain abuse. The Castle Coalition is a grassroots organization coordinated by the Institute for Justice, which litigated the Kelo eminent domain case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005. Anderson said, “Property owners nationwide—particularly minorities, as evidenced by this paper—will remain vulnerable to seizures by tax-hungry governments for land-hungry developers until the use of eminent domain is reined in and limited to only true public uses.”
A recent example of eminent domain targeting African American communities can be found in Riviera Beach, Fla. Despite the state’s new restrictions on eminent domain, city officials are pursuing a plan to remove thousands of mostly low-income, African American residents from their waterfront homes and businesses to make way for a luxury housing and yachting complex. The Institute for Justice is representing property owners there who want to protect their rights and save what rightfully belongs to them.
In addition to her clinical and teaching duties, Dr. Fullilove is the author of Root Shock: How Tearing Up City Neighborhoods Hurts America, and What We Can Do About It, which takes a powerful look at the effects of urban renewal on African Americans. She coined the term “root shock” to describe the devastating effects of forced displacement.
And we can thank all the lefties and middle-of-the-roaders on the SOTU for the recent abuses of eminent domain.
Good article. You'd figure the Democrats would take an interest in this problem. I know of only one Rep that has. Sad.
There is a serious problem of providing certain minorities the opportunity to live in "good neighborhoods" when the term "good neighborhood" is usually defined as one with none of those certain minorities....
If the Demonrats were seriously afraid of black people walking off their plantations to the party of Lincoln, then the Demonrats would begin to care.
If you rent, but don't own the property, can you really claim to be the victim of "eminent domain" action and get away with it?
Kind of like the displaced N.O. Katrina victims...if you were living in government housing projects, you should not have expected to be "given" emergency housing or interest free property replacement loans from insurance companies, or the government ...
-PJ
Eminent domain can only be applied to property owners, not renters. Who is to say the people in this article don't own their properties.
Personally, I sickened by current use of emiminent domain. It smacks fascism.
This is one of those key issues that can drive a wedge into the rat party and split it wide open.
The Sierra Club has blasted black landowners for resisting government control of their land. The Sierra club issued a condescending statement to black land owners telling them to quit complaining and get back on the plantation.
Naturally, the republican leadership didn't take advantage of this rift and allowed this issue to slip into obscurity.
There are thousands of black landowners getting screwed by the fascist rats.
By embracing black landowners and their rights in property, republicans could bring down the eco-fascist cult and their enablers in the propaganda press.
The abuse of eminent domain has been largely ignored because it has been largely visited upon the powerless. "People Who Matter" do not have their properties seized, otherwise they would be, by definition, "People Who Do Not Matter". This is the dirty little secret and it is a story that needs to be told.
Kelo was wrongly decided, but it was also narrowly decided, and the Court invited challenges. These are forthcoming - IIRC, the first case is at the U.S. Court of Appeals level and will soon be at the Supreme Court. With new faces on the Court, we may hope that the right of the people will be strongly confirmed. If so, then Kelso will have been a blow for freedom by bringing this issue to the public's attention.
Correction to my post: Its Kelo, not Kelso. Kelo, not Kelso. Kelo, not Kelso.
Note to Self: Remember, Cocktail Hour begins at 5 PM, not 5 AM.
Stick in the mud.
LOL. Its five o'clock somewhere...
bttt
Liberalism kills...
"Folks on "Handshake" or "Month to Month" agreements have no beef"
I agree.
Having spent many years renting property on a "month to month" basis.
And no, I do not think any entity of "government" has the right to issue a declaration of eminent domain for purely economic considerations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.