The Post-Dispatch Talk of the Day today is about eminent domain. Rep. Steve Hobbs (R-Mexico) has introduced HB 1944 (bill status, bill text), which would bar cities from taking land that has not been declared blighted for private development. The Post summarizes it thusly:
His bill would require that private property be declared blighted to be taken for economic development. The definition of “blight” would be tightened. Gone would be wording that says areas qualify as blighted because they have become “economic and social liabilities.”
The new definition refers to areas that, because of “dilapidation, overcrowding, lack of ventilation, light or sanitary facilities or any combination of these factors are detrimental to public safety, health and morals.”
Stan Wallach, a lawyer in St. Louis County who collaborated with Hobbs on parts of the bill, said the legislation would prevent abuses because it targets “a physically run-down area, as opposed to an economically run-down area.”
To underscore that point, the bill provides: “Under no condition shall a piece of property be determined to be blighted by the sole consideration of the tax enhancements” that redevelopment would bring.
Talk of the Day asks whether “this bill go[es] far enough to prevent situations such as the Sunset Hills neighborhood that was destroyed, or the Manchester auto dealer whose property is being sought by developers?” There’s still a gaping grey area in the definition of blight — does every property in the targeted area have to be blighted? If so, the residents of Sunset Hills would probably have been safe. The bill would probably also protect residents of Clayton in the ongoing dispute there. But one gets the nagging sense that it just doesn’t go far enough.
What is the real issue with blight? Is it slumlords and unsafe properties, as the City of St. Louis believes? If so, vigorous code enforcement is a better solution than razing whole neighborhoods to hand land to private developers. Or is it that local governments see bags of tax receipts from Centene or Novus, and throw respect for private property out the window? No one disputes that unsafe properties should be condemned. But providing cheap land for developers at the expense of individuals is not a proper function of government.
A better approach would be the one taken by South Dakota:
No county, municipality, or housing and redevelopment commission, as provided for in chapter 11-7, may acquire private property by use of eminent domain: (1) For transfer to any private person, nongovernmental entity, or other public-private business entity; or (2) Primarily for enhancement of tax revenue.
Obligatory link: The Castle Coalition, Castle Coalition eminent domain abuse map
