Voter decisions on eminent domain and police power reforms Kwami Adanu a,⇑ , John P. Hoehn b , Patricia Norris b , Emma Iglesias c a Department of Economics and Finance, GIMPA Business School, Accra, Ghana b Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA c Department of Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA article info Article history: Received 16 March 2011 Available online 7 May 2012 JEL classification: Q15 Q24 R38 R52 Keywords: Eminent domain Police power Reforms Voting Logistic regression abstract One unresolved issue arising from the use of eminent domain power involves how the perceived benefits and costs of eminent domain power affect people’s positions on the reform of eminent domain and police power law. The paper addresses this issue by esti- mating a voting model that explains voters’ decisions on eminent domain and police power reform referenda in the US. Estimates indicate that eminent domain referendum outcomes hinged on voters’ fundamental values and ideology, and voters’ immediate self-interest. Voters’ fundamental values and ideology affects referendum outcomes insofar as educational attainment in a county has a statistically significant effect on sup- port for reform. Despite the greater incidence of eminent domain in low income and poorer communities, success of reform referenda in this study was found to be greater in counties with higher incomes and lower unemployment rates. This implies that whatever asymmetry exists in the exercise of eminent domain law across income groups does not affect voter reaction to eminent domain reforms. Moreover, counties with high unemployment rates consider the larger potential benefits from urban renewal projects in vote decision-making providing a link between self-interest and vot- ing behavior. Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Eminent domain and police power are two principal avenues by which governments exercise control over land resources. Eminent domain refers to the power of govern- ment to take private property for public use. Public use here refers to public services like highways, public utilities, community centers, schools, and other facilities that can be made available for use of the entire community (Merrill, 1986). Police power on the other hand describes the right of government to enact and enforce laws that restrict land use to ensure orderly development, safety, health, and pro- tection of the general welfare of the public (Sax, 1964). Good examples of the use of police power include zoning laws, building and health codes, and environmental regulations that impose limits on land use by private own- ers without depriving them of ownership rights over the property. Court decisions have however gradually broadened the definition of public use to include development initiatives undertaken to provide public benefit (US Supreme Court, 1954, 2005; Michigan Supreme Court, 1981). In 1954, the US Supreme Court affirmed the use by the District of Columbia of eminent domain to eliminate blight and rede- velop blighted area, including the sale or lease of con- demned properties to private entities that would undertake redevelopment (US Supreme Court, 1954). Then, in 2005, the US Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court in the famous Kelo v. New London case that under the US Constitution governments are permitted to use eminent domain to take property and transfer its use to other private parties as long as there is a public benefit, such as economic development (US Supreme Court, 2005). 1051-1377/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2012.04.005 ⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail address: dkadanu@gmail.com (K. Adanu). Journal of Housing Economics 21 (2012) 187–194 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Housing Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhec