Melissa Hope Matlins

Blogs, and later major news outlets, have extensively and rightly covered one woman’s lone struggle to retain her property amidst rampant development in China. This omninous picture of her lone “nail house” in the center of a massive construction site must look all to familiar to some older Americans in our cities. In 1954, a historic ruling opened the floodgates for urban renewal projects when a US Supreme Court judgement defined the use of eminent domain for “public use” to include the redevelopment of “blighted” urban areas.
In retrospect, the subsequent urban renewal projects of the 60’s and 70’s were at worst permanently destructive to the urban fabric, and at best an architectural prescription for a sociological malady. Even architects can occasionally admit that design doesn’t solve everything.
However, the definition of “public use,” even with the benefit of hindsight, was not wide enough for some. A more recent Supreme Court decision in 2005 further extends the definition of “public use” to include economic development projects by private owners. In this particular case, the development in question was a office park for Pfizer. Though widely decried by politicians and legal advocates alike, other than some local legislation which limits the Supreme Court ruling, little has been done to restrict the possibility of takings by private developers acting as agents for municipalities eager to expand their tax revenue.
It is so interesting to me how few journalists covering the unfolding situation in China have drawn parallels to America’s legal situation surrounding eminent domain. We can only hope that an advocate as photogenic and media-savvy as Wu Ping will lead the charge for change stateside.
(Photo via CHINAdaily)