Voters Curb Eminent Domain Abuse

by Angie Many

   The citizens of Lakewood, Ohio recently passed Issue 10, repealing the “blight” label -- applied so that the City could use eminent domain to sell the area to a  private developer -- from a neighborhood in the city’s West End. “Voters all across the nation are telling their local governments to stop eminent domain abuse,” said Dana Berliner, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice (IJ). “This vote is part of a national groundswell of resistance to the abuse of government power.”

   Because the area is attractive and well-kept, the City had to use a broad definition of “blight”: not having an attached two-car garage (most in this older neighborhood don’t); having less than two full bathrooms; having less than three full bedrooms; being valued at less than $75 per square foot; or any one of several other characteristics. A “blight study” of the West End had alleged that the neighborhood had a disproportionate number of police and fire department calls and was “functionally and economically obsolete.” However, homeowners proved that there had been only one major crime (a robbery) in the preceding two-and-a-half years. The other police calls had been minor. While many police calls were related to several bars on a commercial street, the City’s redevelopment plan would actually increase the number of bars. And most calls to the fire department had in fact been medical emergencies.

   No one could honestly say the area is blighted, noted the Institute for Justice, which added that ‘...it’s a cute little neighborhood with a beautiful view. Richer people might pay for that view and thus generate more tax dollars -- at least that’s what the City is hoping.’  

   Lakewood bureaucrats are not the first to stretch the definition of “blight” to justify taking perfectly fine property and handing it over to a private developer. “Cities will find a way to label anything blighted, using preposterous justifications for their designation,” states IJ. “In Kentucky, a neighborhood with $200,000 homes has been declared blighted. Englewood, N.J., termed blighted a thriving industrial park that had one unoccupied building out of 37 and generated $1.2 million per year in property taxes. Richfield, Minn., labeled buildings blighted that did not have insulation that met Minnesota’s rules for energy-efficient construction of new buildings. Residents should view any proposed blight designation as the first move in a coming land-grab.”

   Because of the vast potential for such abuse, the U.S. Constitution states that private property shall not be “taken for public use without just compensation.” This imposes two important limits on the taking of private property: first, that the use must be public, and second, that just compensation must be paid. If private property could be taken for any use at all, the term “public” would not have been included. ‘Public use’ was historically interpreted to mean items such as roads, water systems, and public buildings such as post offices.

   Gradually, though, government has come to ignore these limits. After a private entity or developer identifies the parcels of land it wants to acquire and city agencies approve a “redevelopment project,” the city attempts to confiscate these private properties and transfer them to the developer. 

   For all of these redevelopment projects, city leaders must assert some sort of public benefit, and the number one claim is that the project will bring jobs and tax dollars. A recent report found that in just the past five years, state and local governments across the nation have taken or threatened to take by force more than 10,000 homes, businesses, churches and private land for the benefit of other private parties. This ‘jobs-and-taxes’ mantra means that anyone’s home or business is up for grabs!

   The legal landscape seems finally to be shifting, however. In the past few years, numerous courts have actually rejected condemnation projects where the purpose was transfer to private parties. In addition, a growing grassroots rebellion is also underway against abusive eminent domain actions. 

   Condemning property for jobs and taxes has dangerous practical implications, but it is also deeply immoral. The idea that one person will be forced to sacrifice her property, peace, and happiness so that someone else can profit financially is repugnant to our society and to the core principles that led to our founding. It cannot be tolerated.

   (Source: The Institute for Justice (IJ), a Washington, D.C.-based public interest law firm which conducts litigation to help restore judicial protection of private property rights. In addition, IJ trains law students, lawyers and policy activists in the tactics of public interest litigation to advance individual rights. IJ also created the Castle Coalition {www.castlecoaltion.org}, which provides a central bank of information and helps activists connect with each other in fighting the abuse of eminent domain.)