Private Property and Public Power: Eminent Domain in Philadelphia

Through a 16-year window provided by eminent domain proceedings in the city of Philadelphia, Debbie Becher helps us to see that private property and public power are sociologically inseparable. I expect her carefully crafted book to set the standard not only for our thinking about eminent domain and private property, but also for our judgments of excellence in urban sociology of law. In Private Property and Public Power, Becher seeks to persuade us that a conception of property as investment makes the difference in social judgments of legitimacy vis-à-vis government ‘‘takings’’ of private property for redevelopment purposes. I think she succeeds in this task. I am persuaded, and I expect that her broader readership (which I hope will be broad, indeed) will also be persuaded. Investment, for Becher, is a future-oriented conception, which is held by government officials and everyday Americans alike. It involves the sacrifice of value in the present in the hope of future benefits. The types of value that may be sacrificed in investment, according to Becher, are many and various: ‘‘money, time, labor, love, or relationships’’ (p. 8). Americans sacrifice such valued things for their property, and this creates a set of expectations about government behavior. Where the behavior of government officials is seen as honoring and protecting such sacrificial investment, even in the taking of invested property for privately beneficial redevelopment, government action is seen to be legitimate. On the other hand, where sacrificial investment in property is not honored and protected by government officials, government action is judged to be illegitimate. Becher makes her case for property as investment through a carefully crafted study of all eminent domain proceedings in the city of Philadelphia between 1992 and 2007. Spanning two mayoral administrations, Becher’s comprehensive approach enables her to clearly distinguish between cases where the legitimacy of eminent domain proceedings was contested and cases where such proceedings were viewed as legitimate. In spite of the political rhetoric surrounding eminent domain, especially in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), Becher shows that Americans very often accept eminent domain transfers for redevelopment purposes, even when this involves transfers to profit-oriented, private entities. Becher’s study is persuasive because she probes deeply into both sides of the eminent domain process—the government side and the neighborhood side. She spent over two years in daily working contact with government officials—the majority of this time in the offices of the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority, a state agency that administers Philadelphia’s eminent domain proceedings for redevelopment purposes— documenting extensive interviews with mayoral staff and government employees. She observed public and professional meetings related to eminent domain proceedings and combed city archives for historical data. Throughout her book, Becher seeks to go beyond the conspiratorial rhetoric about government activity that often characterizes both leftand right-leaning advocacy, demonstrating a clear commitment to understanding the perspective of politicians and government officials tasked with redevelopment-related activities. At the same time, Becher demonstrates a deep sympathy with Philadelphia residents displaced by eminent domain proceedings. Her personal connection with her subjects comes through especially in the two major cases of eminent domain around which the book centers: the American Street and Jefferson Square redevelopment projects. Through careful documentation of the perspectives of neighborhood residents and community organizers, Becher shows that 142 Reviews