An Alabama Family Is Fighting a Losing Battle Against Eminent Domain
The Moore family has lived on their land for generations. Now the state of Alabama says their homes must make way for a highway.

The Moore family has lived on 120 acres in rural Dixon Mills, Alabama, for over 100 years. Generations of the family, descendants of black, Native American, and Irish sharecroppers, worked the land in Alabama's economically depressed Black Belt region and eventually built a considerable homestead.
Now, much of that land will likely be cleared to make way for the West Alabama Corridor.
In 2021, the state of Alabama announced a construction project which includes a widening of U.S. Route 43 into a four-lane divided highway. This expansion—with state officials claiming a necessary seizure of 190–225 feet of land—entails the seizure of much of the Moore family's property. It would also require demolishing four of their homes, which house 11 family members.
In response, the Moore family has launched the campaign "Seize No Moore Homes," attempting to raise awareness of the challenge the U.S. 43 construction project poses to their way of life. In a statement, the family stressed that they are not opposed to expanding U.S. 43; they believe that the state is planning on taking an unnecessary amount of land rather than pursuing less destructive alternatives.
"This proposed project will dismantle our private owned businesses. Our community will be without an auto mechanic shop, loggers, caterers, carpenters, fresh food vendors, farmers, and livestock would be affected," the Moore family writes in their statement. "This community will never recover from this devastation. If an alternate route cannot be mapped out and the State of Alabama feels that it is necessary for this project to come through our community, at least give us the dignity as taxpayers, homeowners, and landowners to only take the minimally necessary amount of land."
However, state officials say that the seizure is necessary and that engineers have attempted to limit the amount of property affected. As Tony Harris, an official with the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) said in a statement: "[w]e certainly understand the family's concerns about some of their homes being impacted, and we have sincerely worked to limit the amount of property needed for the roadway."
For now, it appears that the seizure of the Moore family's land is constitutional. However, while the state may legally take their land, the Moore family is not convinced that the seizure is strictly necessary for the construction of an expanded U.S. 43. The family argues that only 94 feet of land is required, not the 190–225 feet proposed by the state. "The chief engineer of the project told us that the change we suggested was not considered solely because it would be too expensive for the state's pockets, not because of environmental impacts," said André Fuqua, whose aunt, Marolyn Moore, stands to lose her home. He continued, "[n]othing in their response explains why they aren't willing to make that compromise."
State officials say the project will spur economic development in one of Alabama's poorest regions. "The goal of the West Alabama Corridor project is increasing economic opportunity for rural West Alabama residents," said Harris, who acknowledged that ALDOT can't accomplish this goal without taking private property. Harris claims that "it is an emotional process for those affected, including the men and woman at ALDOT who are involved."
The Moore family believes that preserving its land—and the homes which stand on it—is crucial to preserving their family's history and their way of life. The idea of it being destroyed for an expanding roadway is devastating: "It's like death to the life we have had for 100 years," said Carolyn Moore. "This is everything to us because no one can ever replace what we have here."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Given all the republicans in charge, why haven't the clarion calls of racism worked?
They were part Irish. Doesn't count.
People hated the Irish when they started immigrating. Catholics ya know.
People still refer to police vans as paddy wagons.
Can you imagine if people started calling police vans nigger wagons?
I thought "Paddy Wagons" came from the point where they'd *become* the cops. So presumably we're not there for the blacks, yet.
Dunno. Pretty sure Detroit would qualify.
chicongo would lead the way these days .......
Does anyone think that if the road is built as planned that after awhile the extra land will be deemed as surplus to the state's need and sold off to someone's buddy for a strip mall?
No bet.
Most states have laws requiring that land taken as right of way for road projects and not used as such must be returned to the original owners or their successors.
I don't know if this applies in Alabama.
Government at all levels is notorious for disregarding the law when it applies to them.
That's why we have courts. In Florida, juries are notoriously sympathetic to property owners in condemnation (ED) cases. And the state pays all legal fees for property owners contesting takings.
I realize that this might not be the case in all states.
I will add here that 200' is pretty much the absolute minimum width for a right of way for a (non-interstate) four-lane divided highway with adequate provision for a safe median width, adequate shoulders and sufficient margins to allow for drainage ditches etc. Only in congested urban environments could any less width be considered and that would require expensive to build and maintain underground pipes for drainage.
As usual the article leaves out much detail, but it seems this is an expansion of an existing roadway so I don't think your analysis necessarily holds. What about the property on the other side of the roadway?
I get it, eminent domain bad always, but the constitution is clear that the sticking point is "just compensation". With this in mind, did anybody try to figure out how much was offered, or what the land in question is worth?
You know, journalism and all that?
It’s all about the feelz.
It wasn't even discussed, so given Reason's track record, I assume they were given a reasonable offer.
I can only speak to procedure in Flarida where an appraisal (based on conventual methods) of "Fair Market Value" for the land plus an estimate of "damages" (replacement or relocation of improvement on said land) plus and estimate of loss of income from the loss of the use said land is made. The state then makes an offer which it hopes will be accepted.
If the offer is not accepted litigation begins. And as I noted above, in Florida, juries are notoriously sympathetic to property owners in condemnation (ED) cases.
only if the folks get a real lawyer that knows what he is doing in condemnation cases ......
I can assure you there will be no economic benefits for the residents of west Alabama.
A dead link in HTML is a link that no longer works or goes to the wrong page. In some cases, dead links can be caused by wrong or outdated information in a web page’s code. In other cases, dead links can be the result of a technical issue with a website. To know more visit here: shorturl.at/gvGLT
Not all takings are examples of government misbehavior.
This story does a really poor job of explaining why we should believe bad things about the project here.
Agreed. Worse yet, the author argues her case on the fact that the land has sentimental value to the family, as if everyone else in the history of eminent domain couldn’t care less.
Eminent domain is so badly tainted since Kelo, it is nearly impossible to think of it as not being contaminated by government misconduct.
And yet its use for acquiring highway right of way remains generally uncontroversial unless some activist group jumps on it to grind another ax
Trying to do the math here but don't have enough information. If the state needs 225 feet for some number of miles I can't see that they are proposing to take the entire 120 acres. If homes and businesses are in the path of the route the owners will presumably be compensated and be able to rebuild next to a bigger better road which could improve their prospects. If the state is low balling they can certainly argue their case which I suspect is what's going on here. In any case, this is actually one of the few legitimate reasons for eminent domain and if the owners are fully compensated I don't see a libertarian angle.
So, an acre is 43560 square feet. (Have I noted I hate imperial units?)
To take 120 acres (=5,227,200 sq ft) at 225' width, the state only needs to take a length of 23,232 ft, or 4.4 miles. That seems entirely plausible.
120 acres of land is less than a Quarter Section (1/4 of 640 acres).
Assuming their property is roughly square the taking would be roughly 1/2 mile (2640') X 225' or about 14 acres IOW about 11 or 12 percent of their acreage.
Oh, by the way I have found that people who say "I hate imperial units" are basically innumerate. You really don't know why "you hate imperial units" you just do, in spite of the fact that you have been using them all your life.
You just know that all the "smart people" love SI.
No, it's because remembering the conversion rates is a pain, and I have more important things to occupy my mental space.
SI is much easier on mental bandwidth, because all the units have the same prefices, and they all have the same conversions. Meanwhile, everything is different in imperial.
And frankly, I've never had to calculate anything in acres in real life. "Using them all your life" - only some of them, and many of them only rarely. I certainly don't know how many chains or rods are in a mile without looking it up, or how many pounds are in a stone - i've never needed to use chains, rods, or stones. And don't even get started on volume measurements, because now you need to know if the original source is US or British.
If anything you’ve said is true then you have never lived in the USA
Oh, by the way, when was the last time you heard someone in the USA use the “stone” as a unit of measurement?
You haven’t, have you?
And unless you are a Land Surveyor you have never encountered chains or rods. They have to know such things to interpret old land documents to preserve continuity with the past
But pretending you are unfamiliar with American standard units of length is basically masturbating in public and expecting people to be impressed
The "libertarian angle" is that all transactions for goods and services or land require a "willing buyer" and a "willing seller" who have arrived at a price and made a bargain. Money and Deeds or Bills of Sale then change hands. It all pretty clear. Simple really.
As I outlined below, "When a private buyer needs to acquire land to, say, build an office complex or a factory there are any number of sites to choose from, some miles even hundreds of miles away. State highway departments wanting to build roads are pretty much stuck with a single ideal alignment to build on. Often, they are limited to an existing road."
With "Public works" you are stuck with a captive seller, required to "give" land to the state and a captive buyer, required to "acquire" land in a specific place for a necessary public purpose.
This is essentially how I rationalize Eminent Domain for public purposes while categorically rejecting it in cases like "Kelo" where property is taken for the benefit of private parties.
I would rather not play these kinds of intellectual board games, but the alternative is that no infrastructure of any scale will ever be built without this rationalization.
Pay them enough to get a comparable piece of land and tell em to fuck off.
For some people there is no "comparable piece of land" for them to "fuck off" to.
See Kelo v. City of New London.
...and of course the property in Kelo was never developed as planned. A double insult to those who lost their homes.
Thank goodness they didn’t waste any effort giving me enough information to form an opinion on this.
The issue of eminent domain from the owner/seller's angle is that they are a captive seller, required to "give" land to the state. But from the Buyer/state's angle they are a captive buyer, required to "acquire" land for a necessary public purpose. When a private buyer needs to acquire land to, say, build an office complex or a factory there are any number of sites to choose from, some miles even hundreds of miles away. State highway departments wanting to build roads are pretty much stuck with a single ideal alignment to build on. Often, they are limited to an existing road.
Since ED is established for takings for public purposes the property owner is left with few arguments to fight. One is to argue that the project is not a necessary public use, ie there are not enough potential users and even if there are they have enough alternate routes to use without inconvenience. But for the most part the only arguments most courts will entertain are that the price offered does not reflect the "fair market value" of the property and/or the compensation offered does not cover the damage caused to the owner due to the loss of use of the property.
None of the foregoing should be interpreted an argument in favor of ED. But the fact remains that without ED any kind of major infrastructure project is pretty much impossible. It takes only a single holdout within a highway/railroad/pipeline/canal or reservoir project to shut it down.
Now, there are many people who think we would be better off without grand projects, I confess to being one of them in spite of the fact that I spent much of my life making a living building them. But I very much doubt that many of you in the Reason commentariat would consider that to be a satisfactory situation.
If there is ever a legitimate use of eminent domain, it's road right of ways.
Believe me, I am sympathetic to the Moore family's plight. But my suggestion is that they should sue the shit out of the State of Alabama for full and total compensation for the acreage that they are being required to give up plus full and total compensation for the cost of relocation and/or replacement of any and all improvements that they have made on the land included within the taking. Plus (and this is a more difficult case) compensation for the loss of livelihood that they will suffer from living in a more urbanized locale than they are used to (a difficult case, because if they adapt appropriately, they will most likely prosper in the new environment).
In the end, the Moores may simply have to face what Millions of Americans have already had to face, viz the encroachment of urban and suburban development into their idyllic rural spaces. Alabama is rapidly becoming what Florida once was; a place where housing was affordable and economic opportunity was a reality.
How much value will the Moores gain by virtue of the new road?
We had a local case where land worth diddly squat was being condemned for a road. The plaintiffs wanted to be compensated at the new improved value. A value that wouldn’t exist in the absence of the road.
That said, I can see the argument that some poor schmuck is getting his land converted to $5 while another gets it converted to $50.
If they're living right next to the freeway, they DON'T have access to the freeway, many trips that used to be trivially short now require going several miles to reach an overpass - including to any part of their remaining land that is on the opposite side of the freeway - and their sleep is now disturbed by traffic noise. I've experienced most of this, although the final alignment avoided my land. The value of having a freeway built too near your home is usually negative.
its ALL about the property owner getting the right attorney to get their deal covered .......... the right attorney can get the project stopped / rerouted .......
This is all about the owner of the property getting the appropriate attorney to protect their contract. The proper lawyer can get the project halted or redirected.
Jany,
bulk email finder
- https://minelead.io/bulk-operations/
Wholesale Trade Printing
Just dont widen the road. So long as the govt keeps building more roads, they are picking roads and cars as the market winner. If people really want to drive that way, then someone will build a toll road and have to pay real prices for the land they need. Or theyll innovate.
Any transportation (highway/railroad/canal/pipeline) corridor of any significant length requires the acquisition of many contiguous relatively small parcels of land to assemble all of the right of way needed for the project
It is entirely possible for a single holdout to prevent “a vital transportation link” from being built because he demanded his version of what his property is worth
That is one way to look at it anyway
It’s worth noting at this point that wind and solar farms are now pretty much considered “necessary public purposes” qualified to use ED
I pretty much see the point of covering rooftops with solar cells but for the life of me I can’t understand the logic behind deforesting multiple hundreds of square miles for solar farms