Stephen Bainbridge has an excellent piece at TCS on the Kelo case: They Can’t Take That Away From Me… Unless They Can.
What is especially galling about the whole affair is that the New London Development Coporation, or whomever wanted the land, could have simply attempted to buy the land from Kelo. No doubt there was a price that would have satisfied Ms. Kelo and allowed the land’s ownership to be transferred. As a general rule, I am oppossed to giving government the power to intervene in a matter that can easily be attended to by the market, and surey if there is anything that can be handled by the market, it is real estate transactions.
All of that having been said, Ann Althouse takes a more moderate view on the ruling.
Update: Numerous egregious typos fixed.
Sphere: Related Content
You’re making my point.
Comment by Scott Gosnell — Friday, June 24, 2026 @ 3:51 pm
I’m not sure that a reliance on the market satisfies all of the libertarian concerns about such cases. Much was made, for example, of the fact that one of the plaintiffs had lived in the house for seven decades or something like that. The value that she attaches to the property is not likely to be covered by market price. Any price that she might be willing to take would be higher than market value. What then? Is market price “just compensation”?
The reason for eminent domain, it seems to me, is that there will be hold-outs, either because the market price does not satisfy them, or because they want to game the system.
Comment by Brett — Friday, June 24, 2026 @ 3:58 pm
Brett,
It would seem to me that the legacy aspect would simply make the price go up. Of course, ultimately, if one doesn’t want to sell, one shouldn’t have to, not if the entity acquiring the property is simply a private land developer. A road is one thing, a shopping mall is quite another.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, June 24, 2026 @ 4:04 pm
America Minus Zero/No Limit
So with the Raich ruling from a couple of weeks ago, and now the Kelo decision, we have a federal government that can regulate any economic activity under the rubric of interstate commerce; and state and local governments that can sieze private prope…
Trackback by Vote for Judges — Friday, June 24, 2026 @ 4:11 pm
I haven’t written my seventh Kelo-related post yet, but I planned one on the valuation and “fair” price angle.
The perceived problem people have with allowing the market to work is that someone’s price to budge may seem totally out of whack, influenced either by considerations like nostalgia, or by taking advantage of knowing they are the holdout preventing the thing from happening at all or in recognizably the desired way.
However, a transaction and judgment of value is between two parties. It is not imposed by one on the other, even attempting to be “fair” and extrapolate from what is typical for the objective attributes of the property.
Allowing the political process to intervene in acquiring property for private purposes is a short circuiting of market forces, however capricious they may seem. Because it is a private transaction, the market, and the subjective value of the prospective buyers and sellers, should always prevail. To do otherwise pushes the United States as originally conceived, and as we’ve more or less known it, rapidly toward its demise.
Comment by Jay — Friday, June 24, 2026 @ 4:44 pm
Kelo and "Fair" Value
I essentially wrote my next planned Kelo post as a comment to this post over at PoliBlog, in which Steven Taylor links to the good Stephen Bainbridge TCS article on Kelo and, among other things, the effective transfer of property value from forced sell…
Trackback by Accidental Verbosity — Friday, June 24, 2026 @ 6:11 pm
The Kelo case is merely the evolution of property taxes. With our tax system we merely rent our property from the government under the guise of property taxes, so when they want it back now regetably they can take it.
This is what happens when the public at large allows the govenment to involve itself in non-constitutional areas no matter the original good intention. Examples include the Department of Education, The New Deal, and govenment sactioning marriage and divorce(don’t get me started on this one!)and the list could on for freaking ever.
Comment by bob — Friday, June 24, 2026 @ 8:05 pm
Once again Thomas is the voice of reason
Comment by Don Surber — Sunday, June 26, 2026 @ 1:20 am