Editing Redevelopment (section)

==Urban renewal==
{{main|Urban renewal}}
Some redevelopment projects and programs have been incredibly controversial including the [[urban renewal]] program in the United States in the mid-twentieth century or the [[urban regeneration]] program in Great Britain. Controversy usually results either from the use of [[eminent domain]], from objections to the change in use or increases in density and intensity on the site or from disagreement on the appropriate use of taxpayer funds to pay for some element of the project.
Urban redevelopment in the United States has been controversial because it can displace poor and lower middle class residents, often transferring residents' land and homes to developers for free or a below-market-value price. This is done on the condition that the developer will use that land to construct new commercial and residential developments.

The residents displaced by redevelopment are often undercompensated,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Alexandre|first=Michele|date=2008|title='Love Don't Live Here Anymore': Economic Incentives for a More Equitable Model of Urban Redevelopment|url=https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1113605|language=en|location=Rochester, NY|ssrn=1113605}}</ref> and some (notably month-to-month tenants and business owners) are not compensated at all. Historically, redevelopment agencies have been buying many properties in redevelopment areas for prices below fair market value, or even below the agencies' own appraisal figures because the displaced people are often unaware of their legal rights and lack the will and the funds to mount a proper legal defense in a valuation trial.{{citation needed|date=October 2020}} Those who do so usually recover more in compensation than what is offered by the redevelopment agencies.

The controversy over misuse of eminent domain for redevelopment reached a climax in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 decision in ''[[Kelo v. City of New London]]'', which ruled that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "[[public use]]" under the [[Takings Clause|Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment]].<ref name="citation">{{ussc|name=Kelo v. City of New London|link=|volume=545|page=469|pin=|year=2005}}.</ref> The ''Kelo'' decision was widely denounced and remains the subject of severe criticism. Remedial legislation to restrict the use of eminent domain for private development has been enacted or introduced in a number of states.