Eminent domain -- useful or counterproductive?
"Baltimore’s Flawed Renaissance: The Failure of Plan-Control-Subsidize Redevelopment" makes a case that "the city’s lack of progress on so many fronts is a direct by-product of its failure to understand and treat the real source of its problems: hostility to private property rights and a resulting flight of capital that largely drained the city of its economic lifeblood."
The report, written by Loyola College economics professor Stephen J.K. Walters and Loyola graduate Louis Miserendino, was produced as part of the Institute for Justice’s series on eminent domain abuse. (The institute is a libertarian public interest law firm.) The authors write:
Often, areas that were well-functioning (if unappealing to planners’ eyes) became emptied-out slums only after they were designated as part of a renewal area or were unlucky enough to sit in the path of a planner transit artery thought necessary to revitalize downtown.
Eminent domain has always been controversial, though it has seemed to have more supporters in the city than, say, a suburban community where a state or local agency was eying privately owned land. What do you think its effect has been on Baltimore?