My final post responds to the common suggestion that more money is the “answer” to the public-use problem. (Many thanks, again, to Eugene for inviting me to guest blog this week. It’s been great fun!) First, The Relationship Between Compensation And Deterrence Is Uncertain “More compensation” proponents frequently argue that above-market compensation will deter inefficient […]
Author Archive | Nicole Garnett
Precondemnation Negotiations
Most academic discussions of eminent domain also overlook the fact that the compensation that a property owner receives almost always results from a bargain between the owner and a Taker, rather than a judicial determination of the property’s fair market value. State and federal laws require Takers, in most instances, to seek to purchase property […]
Replacement, not Market, Value
First, a comment on Ilya’s thoughtful response to my post yesterday. Ilya argues that my story about Catholic churches along Chicago’s expressways is more about political power than subjective value. I don’t deny this. Catholics had clout in 1950s Chicago. But, I also stand by my argument that high-subjective value may intensify political opposition to […]
Takers May Minimize Undercompensation by Not Taking High-Value Properties
In yesterday’s post, I suggested that a failure to consider the role of non-judicial actors (“Takers”) in the eminent domain process may have led legal scholars to overstate the undercompensation problem. A number of the comments following the post assume, incorrectly, that I think that fair-market-value compensation will fully indemnify owners. I agree that a […]
What Undercompensation Problem?
Many thanks to Eugene for inviting me to blog about The Neglected Political Economy of Eminent Domain. As Eugene notes, I come to this subject with strong priors – I worked for the Institute for Justice (Susette Kelo’s attorneys), and I disagree with (although I was not surprised by) the holding in the Kelo case. […]