In the United States, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires that just compensation be paid when the power of eminent domain is used, and requires that "public purpose" of the property be demonstrated. Over the years the definition of "public purpose" has expanded to include economic development plans which use eminent domain seizures to enable commercial development for the purpose of generating more tax revenue for the local government. Critics contend (
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/civil_rights/public_use_corporate_abuse.php) this perverts the intent of eminent domain law and tramples personal property rights.
In 1981, in Michigan, the Supreme Court of Michigan, building on the precedent set by Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) [1] (
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=348&invol=26), permitted the neighborhood of Poletown to be taken in order to build a General Motors plant. Courts in other states relied on this decision, which was overturned in 2004 [2] (
http://michiganimc.org/feature/display/6334/index.php), as precedent. This expansion of the definition was argued before the United States Supreme Court in February of 2005 [3] (
http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/092904-a_new_take_on_eminen.php), in Susette Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. [4] (
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-108.htm). In June of 2005, the Supreme Court issued their decision in favor of New London, making eminent domain applicable for private economic development.
In other cases eminent domain has been used by communities to take control of planning and development. Such is the case of the Dudley Street Initiative [5] (
http://www.dsni.org/), a community group in Boston which attained the right to eminent domain and have used it to reclaim vacant properties in the purpose of positive community development.
