The essay is about eminent domain practice by the government of New London, Connecticut. Eminent domain is the power of the government to seize property of a citizen, without owner’s consent with the aim of providing benefit to the public from that property. The court has established this law that it is sovereign right to take private property for the greater public benefit. The fifth amendment of United States Constitution state that private property cannot be acquired for public use, without just compensation, which means appropriate compensation has not be paid in case of needing the property for use. However, public use and just compensation are defined b U.S Supreme Court decision and leaves the determination to case on case basis. Moreover, case laws define that it is sovereign power of eminent domain for state government, local government, public companies and even those private companies which seem to work for the interest of public need. Recent laws state that private companies need to be working on behalf or in conjunction with government to be able to exercise the power of eminent domain. The article supports the government’s stance on the issue and claims it to be right. Regardless of the author’s take on the issue, the author has made many mistakes in the building a strong case for his stance. There are numerous flaws for the support eminent domain of the essay, such as lack of evidence for the claim, shifting the burden of proof, and confirmation bias,
“When it comes to this issue, a person can’t have it both ways! Either stand with us, the wise and perhaps silent majority and support economic development or stand against us. Solidarity is clearly about standing with those who are “right” and against those who are wrong.”
Here, the burden of proof was on the author about how people supporting eminent domain are wrong and he is right. He failed to satisfy the burden of proof here.
Looking at the case of New London, a number of people raised ethical issues such as acquiring property of people which was owned by families and small businesses were run to support themselves. The essay fails to provide the negativities of the case, and solely highlights the positive and justifications for the government. It doesn’t address or refutes the arguments raised by the other side. In other words, the author was guilty of confirmation bias. He knowingly provided the arguments that supported his stance, ignoring the other side’s take altogether.
Furthermore, the essay also provides wrong definition of solidarity. It says, “Solidarity is clearly about standing with those who are “right” and against those who are wrong.” However, the correct definition of solidarity is a means to use the power with others, instead of using powers over others, and taking into account the certainties understood by the marginalized group. In this case, the marginalized group is the one that is being forced to leave their homes. Hence, the author misrepresented the concept of solidarity. The author didn’t provide any argument that provides the perspective of the marginalized group.
Additionally, as we studied, eminent domain is when the property is used to public interest and just compensation is given. The government of New London is working on a comprehensive plan for the town and this acquisition was a part of the bigger plan to make the town grow economically. It is also important to note that the part of city where properties were acquired legally, were identified as a site of focus for economic development, and had very limited economic activity which provided very low income and all the businesses were struggling economically. The people, who lost the businesses temporarily, can now invest there and take higher benefits from the development made in that area, and in the long run the people of that area would be better off and will be able to enjoy better living standards. The government was otherwise criticized for not giving that area its due attention and the African-Americans living there were struggling economically for many years, then how can the intention of the government be questioned in this case.
People questioned the involvement of a private developer in this case, as typically the government plays the role of the developer as well which satisfies people that it is for the public interest, and involvement of a private developer raised a number of questions on government’s ethics. But to explain that, the evidence are present that Supreme Court mentioned that a government may involve a private developer as long as its aim is to benefit public in the end and the end result is in favor of public interest and a project can always fail to provide expected returns but it does not mean that the intention of the government should be questioned. The write successfully made the point that this was under the law. He succeeded in proving that the undertaking was lawful, but his failure to mention and refute the other side’s arguments, shifting the burden of proof, lack of evidence, and confirmation bias make his paper less trustworthy.
References
Hurd, D. I. (2007). Eminent Domain: Resolving Ethical Conflicts Faced by the Engineer. Ohio Valley Regional Student Conference. Western Kentucky University.
Minnesota Institute of Legal Education. (2001). Eminent domain. Minneapolis: Minnesota Institute of Legal Education.
Sandefur, T., & Greenhut, S. (2006, January 31). Eminent Domain: Abuse of Government Power? . Retrieved December 07, 2014, from The Independent Institute: http://www.independent.org/events/transcript.asp?id=114
