The Eminent Domain Revolt:

Sound Bite

Twist the Constitution and you can un-do decades of work sustaining the right to housing. What is the "public interest"? A legal expert analyzes recent legislative proposals and presents a new argument for housing rights.

About the Book

The eminent domain issue involves a new legal controversy about an apparently settled issue. It demands knowledge of the history out of which the Constitution arose, as well as legal background.

Ryskamp provides an "eye witness" report on the law and politics of eminent domain after the Supreme Court's (in)famous Kelo v. New London decision of June of 2005. All the states were obliged to open a new debate about reforming their eminent domain laws, and no one even had a clue how to frame the debate. Legislators were bewildered as to how to proceed.

In the famous Lindsey v. Normet Supreme Court case, 405 US 56 (1972), the Court found there was no right to housing, which is one of the reasons we are in the midst of this eminent domain controversy now. However, the Court made it clear that it was simply the argument which was not convincing, not that such a right could not be found.

This book presents, among other things, a new housing right argument which has not previously been used. However, the dominant theme of the book is precisely the unsettled nature of the law and facts of this controversy. Readers need to inform themselves and think for themselves. In an area in which public opinion will determine much of the outcome, there are no experts—and public opinion is just beginning to form.

This book is for everyone—from lawyers to planners to legislators to the lay public—who is interested in the eminent domain issue as it plays out in state legislatures, debates and crises around the country. The system simply cannot resolve it.

Legal scholars may disagree about Ryskamp's location of the right to housing (under Fifth Amendment Due Process), but the book will convince many readers that we have to start working to understand the legal principles involved in this controversy.