Bogus post-Kelo reform

Ilya Somin comments on an egregious use of eminent domain for private purposes:

If the Chronicle’s description is accurate, this is a typical case of the use of eminent domain for the benefit of private interest groups under a thin veneer of advancing the public interest. . . Texas law allows the condemnation of almost any property for nearly any plausible-seeming reason presented by government officials.

You may wonder how this could be. After all, Texas is one of 43 states that adopted a new eminent domain reform law in the wake of the massive public backlash after the Supreme Court’s hugely unpopular decision in Kelo v. City of New London. The answer is that Texas’ 2005 law is one of many that purports to constrain eminent domain without actually doing so. Although the new statute forbids takings that transfer property to private parties for “economic development,” it allows essentially identical condemnations that promote “community development.”

Leave a comment