Are Reform Laws that Still Permit Blight Condemnations Bad for the Poor?
Given that nine states have indeed enacted post-Kelo reform laws that fit the pattern outlined by Professor Dana, it is still important to ask whether such laws do in fact harm the poor for the benefit of the relatively affluent, as he contends. Moreover, eleven state supreme courts have banned economic development takings under their state constitutions (including two since Kelo), and none of them have so far also banned blight condemnations.[30] While I agree with Professor Dana’s view that the impact of eminent domain on the poor deserves greater consideration than it has so far received, I am not persuaded that post-Kelo reforms banning economic development takings while narrowing the definition of blight are worse than the pre-Kelo status quo. Such laws can provide valuable, even if still inadequate, protection to the poor. And, even if these reforms fail to help the poor, they are unlikely to inflict additional harm on them. It is important to recognize that even condemnations in
