• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no echo chambers. Create your FREE Cyburbia ID, and join us today! You can also register through your Reddit, Facebook, Google, Twitter, or Microsoft account.

Article - 'Kelo' goes to Hollywood


Cyburbian Plus


Staff member
I’m sure if I invest the time to watch this, I’ll end up screaming at the screen.:not:

As I have said many times, Ms. Kelo was all about getting the most cash she possibly could for her house and everybody else be damned. She wasn’t in it to help her neighbors or make for a better redevelopment project. She was in it for the money and she had extraordinary patience that was rewarded handsomely. Wrongly, in my opinion, but hey, good for her. [If anything, I’d like to hear about the actual negotiations for her property, not the fictionalized Hollywood version. That might be quite telling.]

Don't forget, a majority of the Supreme Court held that the eminent domain laws were legally followed, e.g., that economic development was a legitimate public purpose. And why wouldn’t it? A strong commercial/industrial tax base is great for lowering the residential tax burden.

I guess I run in the wrong circles, but I don’t know a single planner that was “spooked” by the opinion in Kelo. I know that a bunch of state legislatures over-reacted and tightened the clamps on the use of eminent domain. Obviously, I disagree with those legislatures.

Maybe I’m part of the “deep state” and nobody told me.:-$


Unfrozen Caveman Planner
Staff member
Was Kelo's little plot of land that integral to greater redevelopment plan? Leave her a drive way and from the nearest main street/road and build around her.

Without looking more deeply into the entire process/plan execution, if Kelo's house was the only holdout, then the final project should have just built around her and avoided the whole issue.

Now if Kelo v New London was several 'scattered' sites int the project area, then building around them may have been more problematic.

I can bet some pragmatic person on the City side thought of or actually said "Let's just build around them, but was ignored through hubris and/or ego.

We have some potential analogous sites in my City that are on a block that we'd like to see redeveloped but there may be a holdout property owner that may want to hold it hostage for a money grab. I've repeatedly explained that the path of least resistance is build around it. That makes life easier for everyone and would likely result in a negative unintended consequence for the holdout from ignoring the "bird in the hand or two in the bush' rubric.


I'm with Gedunker. I was not at all surprise that ED is a legitimate use of eminent domain. What killed me was the over reaction by the states. Instead of just saying ED will not be used for eminent domain in our state the legislatures all created these half baked laws that are still being figured out today. Arizona has the whole prop 207 thing because the state says you can sue over "perceived" loss of value.