In Maryland, eminent domain gives the government the power to take your property, even if you don’t want to sell. But under the Fifth Amendment, eminent domain must be for a “public use,” which traditionally meant projects like roads or bridges. Meanwhile, the government must pay the owners “just compensation” for their property.
The Supreme Court Decision, Kelo v. New London, Made It Much Easier to Abuse Eminent Domain
Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court gutted federal protection against unconstitutional eminent domain when it handed down its decision in Kelo v. New London in 2005. By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court dramatically expanded the definition of “public use” to include private economic development. In other words, local governments can condemn homes and businesses and transfer them to new owners if government officials think that the new owners will produce more taxes or jobs with the land.
As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor warned in her dissent: “The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”
Maryland Responds to KElo
Although Maryland lawmakers filed more than 40 bills addressing eminent domain after Kelo, only one bill (SB 3) was enacted. This modest reform requires condemners to proceed within four years of authorization or the authorization expires and raises caps on various compensation arrangements. An expiration on condemnation authorizations may reduce speculative and unnecessary condemnations, as well as help property owners avoid years of uncertainty surrounding a proposed project.
However, Maryland needs much tougher reform, including stronger property rights protections in the state constitution. The state must also repeal provisions in the Maryland Constitution that authorize quick-take condemnations as well as eminent domain “for development or redevelopment” in Baltimore.
In 2007, the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, issued two rulings that further restricted eminent domain for private development. In Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Valsamaki, the court ruled that the condemnor bears the burden of proof in showing “immediate need” for a quick-take procedure and found there was “sparse evidence” for the condemnation.
Later that same year, the Maryland Court of Appeals reaffirmed the principle that the government must prove that serious conditions exist to justify quick-take condemnations. “The use of quick-take should always be subject to close scrutiny as to the purpose for its use,” the court held in Sapero v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore. “In the case of such limited proceedings, it is the City’s responsibility to provide evidence of the actual exigency or emergency for such an immediate taking.”
Based on its legislative reform and state court rulings, Maryland receives a D for its protections against eminent domain.
Is the Government Trying to Take Your Home or Business with Eminent Domain?
PC: Eminent Domain
"*" indicates required fields
Even if the Institute for Justice cannot take your case, IJ has created the Eminent Domain Abuse Survival Guide to help people fight back. These methods for grassroots activism can be enormously successful. Through community organizing and activism alone, the Institute for Justice has teamed up with local communities to help save nearly 20,000 homes and small businesses from condemnation or being labeled as “blighted” or “in need of redevelopment,” the precursor to eminent domain in many states.
Eminent Domain Facts
Myths about eminent domain abound. Here are the facts:
Eminent Domain is Not a “Last Resort”
Eminent domain is not just abused when people lose their homes in court. It is also abused when a home or business owner sells under the threat of condemnation. The government’s ability to condemn property is so ominous that the mere threat of eminent domain influences all “negotiations.”
Truly voluntary negotiation is impossible when one party has the power to get what it wants no matter what; if the government can take any property it wants, owners have no real power in negotiation. So when officials say they will use eminent domain only as a last resort, it simply means they will use force to take people’s property against their will if they do not agree on a price.
Economic Development Does Not Need Eminent Domain
Projects that use eminent domain often fail to live up to their hype and can end with vacant lots and empty promises. By imposing tremendous costs (both social and economic) in the form of lost communities, uprooted families and destroyed small businesses, eminent domain often thwarts, rather than helps, economic growth. Instead of seizing private property, cities can streamline regulatory barriers, like permitting and zoning laws, and usher in development without eminent domain.
Eminent Domain Harms Vulnerable Communities
Communities targeted by eminent domain for private development are much more likely to be communities of color, while residents are much more likely to live at or below the poverty line and have lower levels of income and education than surrounding neighborhoods, according to research by the Institute for Justice. Cities often target these communities for condemnations, as government officials know the residents there rarely have the political clout or the financial means to fight back.