Eminent Domain and Racial/Societal Bias: A Primer
The government’s use of eminent domain has been essential to facilitate infrastructural development, as the practice has given rise to projects from railroads, to public roads and highways, schools, hospitals, historical sites, parks, and more. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution limits the government’s power to take privately owned lands for public uses or purposes, so long as “just compensation” is paid to property owners. Although the practice is Constitutional, eminent domain has seemingly been disproportionately employed in lower-income neighborhoods and neighborhoods whose residents are predominantly people of color. By taking properties in lower-income communities, the government can acquire large areas of land while typically paying less in just compensation to the extent that properties in these areas are worth less than properties in more affluent areas. This has been argued by some as widening the racial wealth gap while displacing established communities and stripping property owners of a valuable source of generational wealth.
BART
Entire communities have been taken by the government through condemnation proceedings. For Bay Area Rapid Transit, or BART, to construct its large transportation system in the San Francisco Bay area in the 1960s, the acquisition of thousands of parcels of land was necessary. West Oakland, a predominantly Black community, was heavily impacted by BART and other infrastructure projects such as the construction of the Nimitz Freeway. West Oakland was a flourishing community with a wide variety of businesses and services. Most of the families residing in West Oakland had come to California from the South in search of new opportunities. In the 1960s, 5,100 to 9,700 housing units were acquired by the government in West Oakland. An entire community was displaced, and the residents of West Oakland were given little money from BART for relocation. To learn more about the history of the BART project, read this article:
When Bart Was Built And People and Houses Had to Go
Dodger Stadium
Further down the coast of California, the residents of Palo Verde, a Mexican American community, were displaced to make way for Dodger Stadium. In 1959, the land was acquired by the City of Los Angeles through eminent domain and sold to Walter O’Malley, the owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers. The land was offered to O’Malley at a significantly low price. No public housing was built to accommodate residents impacted by the project, and even if it were, the former homeowners would have become renters. Homeownership is a significant source of generational wealth, and its loss amongst the residents of Palo Verde would have impacted future generations.
The Dodgers are a private interest, and the stadium’s construction was challenged by a lawsuit filed against Los Angeles in 1959. The suit cited a stipulation of the 1949 Housing Act stating that land acquired under the act must be used for the “public good.” The California Supreme Court sided with the Dodgers, implying that land being used for the “public good” includes the opportunity for private entities to pursue economic gains. This decision gives the government the opportunity to expand the scope of what is considered a Constitutional taking, creating more room for the abuse of eminent domain directed towards lower-income communities and communities whose residents are predominantly people of color.
The Dodger Stadium project and its impacts have been the subject of numerous articles including:
Learning the Wrong Lessons From the Eminent Domain Legacy at Chavez Ravine
Segregation By Design: Los Angeles – Dodger Stadium
Seneca Village
Targeted eminent domain has not been exclusive to the West Coast. Central Park, one of Manhattan’s most iconic public spaces, was formerly a predominantly Black community known as Seneca Village. Seneca Village served as a refuge from not only the unhealthy living conditions of New York City at the time, but from the rampant racism and discrimination that was prevalent in other neighborhoods. By 1855, over half of the Black residents of Seneca Village owned their homes. At the time, property ownership was required for men to be eligible to vote, and 10% of all Black New Yorkers eligible to vote lived in Seneca Village. When eminent domain was employed to create Central Park, these homeowners lost not only a valuable source of generational wealth but also the ability to participate in American democracy. By taking private land in Seneca Village, the voting power of Black New Yorkers was diminished. Additionally, many Seneca Village residents claimed their land was undervalued upon being taken. An excellent perspective of Seneca Village is available here:
Before Central Park: The Story of Seneca Village
These projects are only a snapshot of the historical perspective involving the use of eminent domain for traditional infrastructure projects which had the effect of disproportionately affecting minority communities. Even highway projects across the nation have been examined for their propensity to “divide” neighborhoods so that certain communities are either completely displaced or, as is quite common, end up on the “wrong side of the tracks”, thereby causing economic and societal harm to communities on a wide scale.
Eminent domain is essential to the government’s ability to construct public projects, yet its use in lower-income communities and communities of color reveals a likely problematic bias in the practice. While there is no simple solution, the processes can be made fair by (a) insuring that projects are necessary and properly planned, as contrasted with projects which target lower-income communities and (b) insuring that the outcomes provide those affected with the constitutional requirement of just compensation for the properties taken and effective relocation assistance to occupants of those properties. These safeguards won’t insure fair outcomes for all involved, but can start to level the playing field.
The author acknowledges the assistance of Alexandra Schraufnagl, a summer intern at McKirdy, Riskin, Olson & DellaPelle in preparing this article. Ms. Schraufnagl is a member of the Class of 2027 at Providence College.
