How Eminent Domain Destroys Neighborhoods
video description
Date: 2019-09-12
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Paul Kim
You make a compelling argument for how eminent domain can be abused, but I think an unanswered question is: what benefit did the west end redevelopment have for the larger city of Boston? It may very well be the case that the residents of that neighborhood were negatively affected (you compelling argue such) but were the demands of the city such that more residents were benefited by the redevelopment than those who were displaced? This is an important question because your previous video about why housing is so expensive in San Francisco shows a situation in which NIMBYism contributes a non-negligible effect on the pricing (and arguably homelessness) in the city. If the west end should have been protected, what argument is there that the preservation of all of the neighborhoods in Boston should have been maintained as well. If that is the case, then how would the city grow to absorb changes in demographics and culture? Thus, I think this video is missing a crucial counterargument: the value to greater Boston. I am not saying that I believe that this value is legitimate enough to validate the displacement of West End residents. I am saying that the displacement of some section of the population, when it comes to city expansion, is almost inevitable. The question is whether or not the benefits are acceptable or not.
reply
You make a compelling argument for how eminent domain can be abused, but I think an unanswered question is: what benefit did the west end redevelopment have for the larger city of Boston? It may very well be the case that the residents of that neighborhood were negatively affected (you compelling argue such) but were the demands of the city such that more residents were benefited by the redevelopment than those who were displaced? This is an important question because your previous video about why housing is so expensive in San Francisco shows a situation in which NIMBYism contributes a non-negligible effect on the pricing (and arguably homelessness) in the city. If the west end should have been protected, what argument is there that the preservation of all of the neighborhoods in Boston should have been maintained as well. If that is the case, then how would the city grow to absorb changes in demographics and culture? Thus, I think this video is missing a crucial counterargument: the value to greater Boston. I am not saying that I believe that this value is legitimate enough to validate the displacement of West End residents. I am saying that the displacement of some section of the population, when it comes to city expansion, is almost inevitable. The question is whether or not the benefits are acceptable or not.
reply
Stefan
So many parallels with the plight of people from poor areas in inner city Glasgow in the 50s. Not only were neighbourhoods separated and torn apart but also land marks suffered the wrath of the council too (many deemed to expensive look after or left beyond repair. A famous area is the Gorbals. It was poor and was well known for slum conditions and families living in just one room. When the mass exodus came it was a double edged sword as although the new build areas such as Castlemilk, Drumchapel and Easterhouse came with fancy 'new' tenaments and high rise flats with what those at the time would describe as 'luxury' indoor toilets and bath tubs. Local amenities such as shops and recreation facilities were left forgotten about turning the new areas into what became known as concrete jungles. Poverty and social unrest sadly followed the people of the Gorbals to the outskirts of Glasgow. It's only in the past twenty five years has meaningful steps in social improvement been taken. Known as the Glasgow regeneration. Still lots of work to do. I was born 94. I remember the old grey buildings in Castlemilk disappearing as I grew up. The houses now are much brighter now.
reply
So many parallels with the plight of people from poor areas in inner city Glasgow in the 50s. Not only were neighbourhoods separated and torn apart but also land marks suffered the wrath of the council too (many deemed to expensive look after or left beyond repair. A famous area is the Gorbals. It was poor and was well known for slum conditions and families living in just one room. When the mass exodus came it was a double edged sword as although the new build areas such as Castlemilk, Drumchapel and Easterhouse came with fancy 'new' tenaments and high rise flats with what those at the time would describe as 'luxury' indoor toilets and bath tubs. Local amenities such as shops and recreation facilities were left forgotten about turning the new areas into what became known as concrete jungles. Poverty and social unrest sadly followed the people of the Gorbals to the outskirts of Glasgow. It's only in the past twenty five years has meaningful steps in social improvement been taken. Known as the Glasgow regeneration. Still lots of work to do. I was born 94. I remember the old grey buildings in Castlemilk disappearing as I grew up. The houses now are much brighter now.
reply
Christopher Sanders
Both rich and poor neighborhoods can be subject to eminent domain for the betterment of the entire city and for everyone not just the poor and rich. Why should everyone in the middle class get the squeeze but no one else? I think Boston shouldve done rich areas too and revitalized the whole city. I hate how they tried to make this a race issue when this issue doesnt have to be correlated at all with race. Stuff like that tries to drum up support for a bias by tugging at peoples knee jerk reaction to race being brought up and to poor people allegedly being the target. Im not buying it. Cities should be using eminent domain more liberally so they can accomodate housing and transportation for more people as they continue to grow. Yes sometimes things go wrong or dont work out. Thats not an excuse to give up. I want to live in a better city. The reason projects take so long to build is government officials arent using all of the tools at their disposal to complete these projects as quickly as possible.
reply
Both rich and poor neighborhoods can be subject to eminent domain for the betterment of the entire city and for everyone not just the poor and rich. Why should everyone in the middle class get the squeeze but no one else? I think Boston shouldve done rich areas too and revitalized the whole city. I hate how they tried to make this a race issue when this issue doesnt have to be correlated at all with race. Stuff like that tries to drum up support for a bias by tugging at peoples knee jerk reaction to race being brought up and to poor people allegedly being the target. Im not buying it. Cities should be using eminent domain more liberally so they can accomodate housing and transportation for more people as they continue to grow. Yes sometimes things go wrong or dont work out. Thats not an excuse to give up. I want to live in a better city. The reason projects take so long to build is government officials arent using all of the tools at their disposal to complete these projects as quickly as possible.
reply
Jared Maddox
The blight thing isn't complete nonsense, but simply using it against neighborhoods is. That general sort of thing has been done with abandoned (and maybe decrepit or tax-delinquent) _properties_ in the town I'm currently living in. And Habitat for Humanity has apparently taken advantage by building _new_ houses in the same places, surrounded by old houses. The administration that was doing a lot of it has been kicked out (as you might imagine, they also had other, worse ideas, but that one thing, the demolishment of abandoned properties, has actually turned out well. Too bad that immanent domain is normally used for ego projects & developer benefit instead of actual in-place-community revitalization.
reply
The blight thing isn't complete nonsense, but simply using it against neighborhoods is. That general sort of thing has been done with abandoned (and maybe decrepit or tax-delinquent) _properties_ in the town I'm currently living in. And Habitat for Humanity has apparently taken advantage by building _new_ houses in the same places, surrounded by old houses. The administration that was doing a lot of it has been kicked out (as you might imagine, they also had other, worse ideas, but that one thing, the demolishment of abandoned properties, has actually turned out well. Too bad that immanent domain is normally used for ego projects & developer benefit instead of actual in-place-community revitalization.
reply
Edwin Walker
This concept is referred to as a Compulsory Purchase Order here in the UK. With the rapid redevelopment of the area surrounding Bristol's main railway station, Temple Meads, the council has once again come up against the derelict 19th century Grosvenor Hotel standing nearby. The council has long wanted to compulsory purchase it, but there is always a cat and mouse game of what if the owners actually decide to develop it? The council want to demolish it and hand over the land for private development alongside another plot of publicly owned land adjacent. The owners were supposed to be turning it into student accommodation. Then they went bankrupt and are being investigated by the government. Shrug.
reply
This concept is referred to as a Compulsory Purchase Order here in the UK. With the rapid redevelopment of the area surrounding Bristol's main railway station, Temple Meads, the council has once again come up against the derelict 19th century Grosvenor Hotel standing nearby. The council has long wanted to compulsory purchase it, but there is always a cat and mouse game of what if the owners actually decide to develop it? The council want to demolish it and hand over the land for private development alongside another plot of publicly owned land adjacent. The owners were supposed to be turning it into student accommodation. Then they went bankrupt and are being investigated by the government. Shrug.
reply
Ian Terry Roy MacLeod
Eventually the old must be torn down and replaced with new and more efficient models. Often the people are offered a good trade but they refuse to move due to misplaced nostalgia for a building that is falling apart. The sprawl that is of today must be taken down and reinvigorated with the knowledge from new studies of building code and environmental conservationists techniques. It's called. Move, let the new be built, then move back with the money you were offered. If the people can not budget from a payout worth 50-100 thousand, then they should be left with nothing for being usless fools. We must keep sustaining progress, not become comfortable in stagnating
reply
Eventually the old must be torn down and replaced with new and more efficient models. Often the people are offered a good trade but they refuse to move due to misplaced nostalgia for a building that is falling apart. The sprawl that is of today must be taken down and reinvigorated with the knowledge from new studies of building code and environmental conservationists techniques. It's called. Move, let the new be built, then move back with the money you were offered. If the people can not budget from a payout worth 50-100 thousand, then they should be left with nothing for being usless fools. We must keep sustaining progress, not become comfortable in stagnating
reply
Slade Wilson
My problem with your video is you explain the Constitution as allowing Eminent Domain like it wasn't always a thing the government did. The fact is the Constitution was meant to limit the practice to allow it only for public use and by forcing the government to give you fair market value. The Crown would just take your property, kick you out, and not give you anything and if they did pay you something it wasn't fair value. Your problem isn't with the constitution but with the practice that predated it and the liberal courts who eviscerated it by broadly applying the term public use to everything.
reply
My problem with your video is you explain the Constitution as allowing Eminent Domain like it wasn't always a thing the government did. The fact is the Constitution was meant to limit the practice to allow it only for public use and by forcing the government to give you fair market value. The Crown would just take your property, kick you out, and not give you anything and if they did pay you something it wasn't fair value. Your problem isn't with the constitution but with the practice that predated it and the liberal courts who eviscerated it by broadly applying the term public use to everything.
reply
H V
Very much enjoyed the video and found it informative (as I have with all of your other videos that I've had a chance to watch. You touched briefly on the way urban renewal projects were meant to accomplish some of the same goals that gentrification accomplishes (regardless of whether or not you think those are goals worth accomplishing. Are you planning to do a video on gentrification in the near future? Would definitely be interested in learning more about how that process unfolds and what effects it has on communities.
reply
Very much enjoyed the video and found it informative (as I have with all of your other videos that I've had a chance to watch. You touched briefly on the way urban renewal projects were meant to accomplish some of the same goals that gentrification accomplishes (regardless of whether or not you think those are goals worth accomplishing. Are you planning to do a video on gentrification in the near future? Would definitely be interested in learning more about how that process unfolds and what effects it has on communities.
reply
prion42
Eminent domain is not established by the Constitution, rather, it is a property of sovereignty. That vague clause in the Fifth Amendment is the only constitutional limit on eminent domain. What this means is we the people have the power to restrict eminent domain by legislative process, and at the state level through initiative. All that is required is political will. But the powerful who set the agenda never get excited about restricting eminent domain, do they?
reply
Eminent domain is not established by the Constitution, rather, it is a property of sovereignty. That vague clause in the Fifth Amendment is the only constitutional limit on eminent domain. What this means is we the people have the power to restrict eminent domain by legislative process, and at the state level through initiative. All that is required is political will. But the powerful who set the agenda never get excited about restricting eminent domain, do they?
reply
Timothy Stamm
Um, one nitpick, that clause in the 5th Amendment is supposed to be a restriction on an inherent power of a government under common law. So, the real problem is that the restriction doesn't mean much anymore because public use has been stretched in its meaning and just compensation is not much of a restriction when you are talking about agencies that have open access to financing through taxation inter-goverment grants, and bonds. Edited for punctuation.
reply
Um, one nitpick, that clause in the 5th Amendment is supposed to be a restriction on an inherent power of a government under common law. So, the real problem is that the restriction doesn't mean much anymore because public use has been stretched in its meaning and just compensation is not much of a restriction when you are talking about agencies that have open access to financing through taxation inter-goverment grants, and bonds. Edited for punctuation.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
