The United States constitution allows for the seizure of private property for “public use,” so long as “just compensation” is paid to the owner. The Kelo ruling in 2005 brought the issue of “public use” to the forefront. In that case, the Court endorsed the use of eminent domain for economic development, thereby hanging, as Justice Sandra Day O’Connor put it, “the specter of condemnation … over all property.”
Texas, along with many other states, quickly acted to reform its eminent domain laws. Many states sought to limit or prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development. While such efforts are a step in the right direction, they fail to address the essential issue.
Some, such as the Texas Public Policy Foundation, called for a more careful definition of what constitutes a legitimate “public use.” The foundation endorsed a proposition asserted by Justice Clarence Thomas: “public use” means that the government or the public actually uses the property.
This would certainly provide protection from abuses such as Kelo. But it does nothing to protect property from government seizure. Government would retain the ability to seize any parcel of land, so long as it or “the public” used that property. The specter of condemnation would continue to hang over all property.
True reform of eminent domain means abolishing eminent domain. There is no instance in which it is proper to seize private property.
Private economic transactions are based on the voluntary consent of all parties. If one party does not like the terms of the deal, they are free to abstain or make a counter offer. Eminent domain discards consent, forcing owners to sell their property on terms that the government deems just.
Coercing others to partake in an economic transaction is a criminal act. It doesn’t become proper or just when the government does it.