A future paper in a review of law and economics, “The Long-Term Impact of the City of Kero V. New London: A Comparison of State Legislation and Judicial Responses,” and my former West Carolina University colleagues Ed Lopez and H. Justin Pace and I discuss justification of prominent territory.[1] I will mainly discuss the holdout issue. The Holdout issue describes sellers who refrain from selling to maximize profits, but at the expense of the entire project, seeking rent. Prominent domains can be used to overcome this challenge. In that case, a prominent domain can strengthen welfare.
“
The issue that comes with holdout issues arise when negotiating costs are high bans in public works projects. (I would certainly argue that this is the best use of a prominent domain, but it’s not here or there.) Considering, for example, an older city, Boston says. Boston was founded in the 1630s. This is a period long before the benefits of modern sanitation and sewer systems are understood. Boston grew, grew, and also considered human waste and hygiene needs. Ultimately, we discovered that dumping human waste on the streets and on rivers was not the best idea, and cities began to build modern wonders, a sewer system.[2] But by the time Boston’s modern sewer system began construction in 1877, the city was already in good SD.
Of all Tohellers, it was probably expensive (even removing the issue of holdouts and strategic negotiations). On several occasions in the process, the city has called out prominent territory to take the necessary actions (currently codified authority in Chapter 83, Title XIV of Massachusetts General Law). This could well use the power of a prominent domain. A common case of improving general welfare (as opposed to the rougher “overcoming social benefits” that is more rough than dive money uses). Here, prominent domains represent the least expensive way to achieve your goals. Other old CISIEs are likely to face the same problems, and managed them using prominent domains.
But does this case mean that the prominent domain of sewer systems is always a good thing? To answer this question, let’s assume that the construction of a sewer system is itself a general welfare improvement.
I argue that my concern about my question is “no.”
Let’s say we want to move away from the old city and create a new city: Mutphopolis. Mutapolis is everywhere in the vast Arizona desert. 46,000 people travel in the middle of the desert and begin building in the town in spiders, scorpions and fiery heat. In 2025, the benefits of sewer systems are well known. The city’s construction does not need prominent domains. You can write property contracts to incorporate poor easements and connections. Sewer systems can occur naturally. Certainly, you may not need government-run or provided sewer systems at all! Anyone who wants to call a prominent domain for a sewer project should face higher standards of scrutiny.
Moving towards a more general issue of government, many supporters of government actions simply point out that actions used in the past resolve some problem and conclude that the same actions are approved. However, the time and conditions of the present problem are not the same as in the past. Just because a prominent domain was a good solution for problem A does not mean that it is a good solution for problem B. It is beneficial to use prominent domains to build a Boston sewer system. Using it to build a Merphopolis sewer system can be harmful.
So what I see as a government problem: the proper use of that power, in contrast to the accidental use of power. The government has postrolls to play. However, the “man of the system” (to borrow Adam Smith’s phrase) undermines the government’s interests by using it unplannedly.[3]
–
[1] Ed discovers the papers more commonly here.
[2] I don’t use “wonders” lightly. Think about it: We all have a small hole in our home, where we put waste, pollutants, and non-performance water, whisk them to get proper treatment and temperament. Think about how clean and safe our lives are! How many horrible deaths and illnesses from diseases such as cholera, dysentery, and other water/food/waste-borne illnesses, simply stealing their source through this small hole?
[3] Like Ateide, ID argues that the majority of government evil comes from this accidental approach to government, not from the pointless abuse of power by evil men. Like children playing with a loaded gun, their misunderstanding and ignorance can lead to unintended, horrifying admissions.
