How Societal Bias Shapes Eminent Domain Decisions

The societal bias inherent in eminent domain practices has become increasingly apparent as studies reveal its disproportionate impact on vulnerable communities across New Jersey and nationwide. The government’s power to acquire private property, while essential for public infrastructure development, has given rise to projects ranging from railroads and highways to schools, hospitals, and parks.

As experienced eminent domain attorneys, we’ve observed that while the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires “just compensation” for taken properties, the practical application of eminent domain often reflects deeper systemic inequities. This is particularly evident in New Jersey, where eminent domain NJ cases have historically clustered in lower-income neighborhoods and communities predominantly composed of people of color.

The pattern becomes clear: by targeting properties in these areas, government entities can acquire large parcels while typically paying less in compensation, as property values in these communities are often artificially depressed due to historical redlining and disinvestment.

Our work as an eminent domain attorney has shown that this practice not only displaces established communities but also perpetuates the racial wealth gap by removing one of the primary vehicles for building generational wealth — property ownership. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for property owners facing eminent domain proceedings, as it helps inform their legal strategy and ensures they receive truly just compensation, regardless of their community’s demographic makeup.

BART

The BART project of the 1960s stands as a stark example of how societal bias can manifest in large-scale eminent domain actions. To understand what is the definition of eminent domain in practice, one need look no further than the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system’s construction, which required the acquisition of thousands of properties through condemnation proceedings. The project’s impact was particularly severe in West Oakland, a predominantly Black community that had flourished as a haven for families who had migrated from the South seeking better opportunities.

When property owners tried to fight eminent domain during BART’s expansion, they faced significant challenges. The government’s approach to determining eminent domain fair market value proved especially problematic in West Oakland, where between 5,100 and 9,700 housing units were acquired. Despite the community’s vibrancy, featuring numerous Black-owned businesses, professional services, and cultural institutions, residents received minimal compensation and inadequate relocation assistance.

The consequences were far-reaching and continue to resonate today. The displacement of an entire community — one that had built itself through generations of investment and cultural development — demonstrates how infrastructure projects can perpetuate historical inequities. The BART case exemplifies a pattern seen in many transportation projects nationwide, where communities of color bear a disproportionate burden of displacement while receiving compensation that often fails to reflect their properties’ true economic and cultural value.

This history serves as a crucial reminder for modern property owners facing similar challenges. Understanding past cases like BART helps inform current strategies for securing fair compensation and protecting community interests when facing eminent domain proceedings. It also underscores the importance of having experienced legal representation to ensure that historical patterns of undervaluation and hasty displacement are not repeated.

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

The construction of Dodger Stadium stands as another compelling example of how societal bias can intersect with eminent domain abuse. In 1959, the City of Los Angeles exercised eminent domain to acquire land from Palo Verde, a thriving Mexican American community, only to sell it to Walter O’Malley, owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers, at a significantly reduced price. This case exemplifies how private interests can sometimes exploit governmental powers at the expense of vulnerable communities.

The displacement of Palo Verde residents carried far-reaching consequences that continue to resonate through generations. Without provisions for public housing and faced with the transition from homeownership to renting, these families lost more than just their homes – they lost a crucial vehicle for building generational wealth. This pattern of eminent domain implementation often disproportionately affects communities of color, disrupting established neighborhoods and economic foundations that took decades to build.

A pivotal lawsuit in 1959 challenged the city’s actions, questioning whether private commercial development truly served the “public good” as required by the 1949 Housing Act. The California Supreme Court’s decision to side with the Dodgers significantly expanded the interpretation of what constitutes a legitimate public purpose in eminent domain cases. This ruling set a precedent that continues to influence property rights today, potentially enabling further eminent domain abuse under the guise of economic development.

The Dodger Stadium case illuminates several critical issues that remain relevant for modern property owners:

• The blurred line between public benefit and private gain in eminent domain proceedings
• The long-term economic impact on displaced communities
• The importance of scrutinizing proposed “public purpose” justifications
• The need for adequate compensation that considers not just property value, but community impact

Understanding these historical cases helps property owners recognize potential warning signs and better protect their rights when facing similar challenges today. It underscores why proper legal representation is crucial in ensuring fair treatment and just compensation in eminent domain proceedings.

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

While discussions of societal bias in land acquisition often focus on modern cases, the history of New York’s Central Park provides a compelling historical example that continues to inform our understanding of eminent domain practices. Before becoming Manhattan’s celebrated public space, the land was home to Seneca Village, a thriving Black community that exemplified the complex relationship between property rights and civil liberties.

The distinction between police power vs. eminent domain becomes particularly relevant when examining Seneca Village’s story. While police power allows governments to regulate property use for public welfare, eminent domain enables the outright taking of private property – a power that proved devastating for this community. By 1855, Seneca Village had achieved remarkable success: over half of its Black residents owned their homes, a striking achievement in an era when property ownership determined voting rights.

The community’s significance extended far beyond its physical boundaries:

• It served as a sanctuary from the unsanitary conditions and racial discrimination prevalent in other parts of New York City
• The village represented 10% of all Black New Yorkers eligible to vote
• It established a model of Black property ownership and community self-determination
• The community created valuable networks for cultural preservation and economic advancement

When eminent domain was exercised to create Central Park, the impact transcended mere property loss. Village residents faced multiple forms of dispossession:

• The loss of valuable property that could have generated generational wealth
• Disenfranchisement, as property ownership was linked to voting rights
• The destruction of a safe haven from racial discrimination
• The systematic undervaluation of their properties during the taking process

This historical case remains relevant today, offering crucial lessons about the intersection of property rights, civil rights, and community displacement. Modern property owners facing eminent domain proceedings can learn from Seneca Village’s experience about the importance of:

• Ensuring proper property valuation that considers community context
• Understanding the full scope of potential losses beyond mere property value
• Recognizing how property rights connect to broader civil rights
• Securing proper legal representation to protect both individual and community interests

An excellent perspective of Seneca Village is available here:

• Before Central Park:  The Story of Seneca Village

Conclusion

The historical examples discussed reveal how societal bias in eminent domain practices extends far beyond isolated incidents, creating patterns that continue to shape communities today. From highway projects that physically divide neighborhoods to developments that displace entire communities, the impact of these decisions resonates through generations, particularly in New Jersey and nationwide. When examining eminent domain taxation impacts alongside displacement effects, we see how these actions can create compounding economic challenges for affected communities.

As experienced eminent domain New Jersey attorneys, we recognize that while eminent domain remains necessary for public infrastructure development, its implementation demands careful scrutiny and reform.

Two critical factors can help ensure fairer outcomes:

1. Project Necessity and Planning: Infrastructure projects must be thoroughly evaluated to ensure they serve genuine public needs rather than targeting lower-income communities for convenience or cost savings.
2. Constitutional Compliance: Proper adherence to just compensation requirements and comprehensive relocation assistance must be guaranteed, ensuring displaced property owners receive fair value for their losses.

While these safeguards alone cannot eliminate all inequities, they represent crucial steps toward more equitable eminent domain practices. Property owners facing eminent domain proceedings deserve advocates who understand both the legal complexities and the profound community impacts of these actions. Our firm commits to protecting property owners’ rights while working toward fairer outcomes for all communities affected by eminent domain.

If you’re facing an eminent domain situation in New Jersey, contact our experienced attorneys to discuss your rights and options. We understand what’s at stake goes beyond just property value – it’s about protecting your community’s future and ensuring just treatment under the law.

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.