Assessing Kelo’s Legacy: Do Increased Taxes and New Jobs Justify Use of Eminent Domain?

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo v. New London (2005) justified the use of eminent domain for redevelopment takings based on the anticipated spillover benefits to the community in the form of increased taxes and new jobs. This paper asks whether this is a coherent economic rationale for allowing expropriation of residential land for private development. We show that, in the absence of a market distortion, the answer is generally no. However, when there is a pre-existing imperfection in the land and/or labor market, it is possible, though not guaranteed, that allowing eminent domain will increase social welfare. The reason, however, is not because of the increased tax revenue or employment per se, but rather because eminent domain increases industrial/commercial land use above the inefficiently low level that arises in the presence of the distortions. Thus, setting aside questions about fairness or holdouts, we show that whether using eminent domain for private takings can be justified on the basis of economic efficiency hinges on the existence of market distortions and the relative values of residential vs. industrial/commercial land in that particular market.