Is American eminent domain a sinister weakness of public-private partnerships?
Imagine that you own a small, old family dwelling in a downtown neighbourhood that has seen better days. A young middle class couple are tired of the suburbs and would like to live in the heart of the city. They scout your location and it would suit them just fine. So, they seize your property by eminent domain, tear down your inadequate (for their needs) dwelling, and build a delightfully attractive townhouse.
Can’t happen, right? Because the power to seize property by eminent domain is vested in governments, supposedly in the interests of the community. It is not a tool for use by individuals.
Enter public-private housing partnerships. The city can use eminent domain for an affordable housing project. They can seize your house, and a bunch more of them besides.
Only . . . some of that seized property will go to building private market-rate housing. It seems that the prosperous couple from the suburbs may, via public-private partnership, effectively seize your property and gentrify the neighbourhood at your expense after all!
Read more in The Guardian: Atlanta is seizing homes for ‘public use’ – could it be the latest gentrification tactic?
And Grand Rapids, Michigan debates this problem according to mLive: Gentrification in Grand Rapids: Land bank director, local experts to speak up
Put these gentrification issues together with the strangely convenient inability of builders to properly compute their expenses and profits when entering into British public-private housing partnerships: Public/Private Housing Partnerships. ‘Gullible’ Climbs Into Bed With ‘Venial’ and you have a recipe for gentrifying a city core using money intended for most in need of affordable housing.
