“Not Imminent in My Domain!” County Leaders’ Attitudes toward Eminent Domain Decisions

Abstract

Eminent domain is an urgent problem facing local government administrators and scholars throughout the United States. However, the literature is sparse regarding how local leaders make decisions on this hot‐button issue. A 2006 Government Accountability Office report noted a lack of data about local governments’ use of their eminent domain authority. A survey of county managers in North Carolina was conducted to redress this apparent knowledge gap. Although the findings are primarily generalizable only to other Dillon’s rule states, such data demonstrate that eminent domain applies more often for “narrow” (public use) purposes, such as water and sewer systems, than for “broad” (public good) purposes, such as economic development. Current and future property considerations also influence eminent domain decisions. [A] law that takes property from A, and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. —Associate Justice Samuel Chase, majority opinion, Calder v. Bull (1798)

Making Connections: Performance Regimes and Extreme Events

“…The expectations are tested using data from a survey of emergency managers in North Carolina counties . Although single‐state studies have limited generalizability, North Carolina counties offer much variability in terms of demographics and social factors, thereby lessening the limitation (Hoyman and McCall ) and providing a defensible test bed for the exploration of performance regimes.…”

Does County Form of Government Impact Economic Growth and Development Trends? The Case of Four States

“…Dewees et al’s (2003) explanation for the inclusion of the 222 counties selected from six states is that counties included “represents a distinct economic and ecological region,” including counties from large metropolitan regions to isolated rural communities (Dewees et al, 2003). Similar to Hoyman and McCall (2010), the authors note that a case-state analysis limits generalizability to other states. However, the four states included in this analysis account for a large variation in exploring the range of sociodemographic factors that exist across states (i.e., population, income, etc.…”

“…Discussions regarding the factors that influence county economic growth and development trends are somewhat lacking in comparison but have slowly begun to flourish. Typically, such work has examined the impact-specific policy instrument types have on economic development trends (see Hicks & LaFaive, 2011; Hoyman & McCall, 2010), and some explore this relationship associated with different forms of governments (Feiock, et al 2003).…”

“…It is important to note that the population size of this study limits the generalizability of the findings here to other states. Hoyman and McCall (2010), however, note that several scholars acknowledge case studies as adding value to research. In their work, they note that single-state studies can provide much insight regarding variations in the form of government or environment context of a community.…”

“…They also note that, according to Nicholson-Crotty and Meier (2002), there is even support for using single-state studies because they can have greater internal validity. Several researchers have used one- or two-state case studies in their economic development research (see Bowman, 1988; Casey, 2015; Hall, 2008; Hoyman & McCall, 2010; Reese, 2006; Rosenfeld & Reese, 2003; Rubin & Rubin, 1987; Zeemering, 2014). Zeemering (2014) also notes that, according to Gerring (2004, 2007), case studies are generalizable to other similarly situated communities.…”