Wednesday, March 15th, 2006,
by Fred (,
eminent domain, Missouri, property, Steve Hobbs
,
The Missouri House began considering Rep. Hobbs’ eminent domain bill yesterday. First up at a hearing was Greg Smith, attorney for the takers:
Developers need the power to condemn private property to revitalize older, urban areas such as St. Louis, an attorney for business interests told legislators Tuesday.The message came from Greg Smith, who handed out photos to underscore his point. The pictures showed how a landscaped lot with a new Save-A-Lot store had replaced a burned-out shell of a business on the city’s north side.
“This is a valid public purpose,” Smith said. “We’re condemning this so residents have a grocery store within a reasonable distance of their homes.”
Mr. Smith misses the point on so many levels, it’s mind-boggling. If the city wants to develop a site currently housing a “burned-out shell of a business”, they can declare it blighted. Virtually everyone fighting eminent domain abuse thinks that condemnation of truly blighted property is acceptable, so long as the definition of blighted in sufficiently narrow. This would be permissible under the Hobbs bill.
Second, by focusing on the public “purpose” rather than public “use”, Smith continues the redefinition of the Constitution started by the Kelo court. Lots of things are a public purpose, but only some of them rise to the level of public use that allows taking of private property by the government. A grocery store is not a public use, regardless of the benefit to the public from not having to drive so far to buy peanut butter.
Finally, when you have to force people from their homes or businesses to make way for the Save-A-Lot, it doesn’t do those residents much good, does it?
Smith went on to make a statement that channels a bit too much Orwell for my taste.
The principle of eminent domain was built on the idea that “individual property rights must at times give way to the collective good,” Smith said.
There is some merit to this, of course. Roads, for example, are a proper function of local government, provide benefit to local citizens, are available for public use, and would not be possible but for the ability of the government to take land from individuals for just compensation. Local government is not (and should not be) in the grocery store development business. A new Save-A-Lot built on the backs of individuals who have property seized by government force is not a public use.
Hopefully the legislature will hear from some people who make more sense and understand the issue better.
Share This
Monday, March 13th, 2006,
by Fred (,
Centene, eminent domain, Missouri, novus, property, Steve Hobbs
,
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
Share This
