Eminent domain bandwagon
Your elected officials at work ….
In what is pretty clearly becoming a national trend,
A bipartisan group of state lawmakers, spurred by a recent US Supreme Court ruling, is pushing a measure designed to curb the power of
Of course, those whose existence is predicated on eminent domain are against it:
The move will face strong resistance from local leaders and agencies such as the Boston Redevelopment Authority, who fear that restricting the power of eminent domain will hamper their efforts to rejuvenate rundown neighborhoods.
Eminent domain for urban renewal can be used for either of two distinct but overlapping goals:
1. Correcting urban decay/ blight/ neighborhood collapse.
2. Raising the tax revenue base.
In my view (and, by the way, long-established Supreme Court precedents), the former is a valid use, the latter is not. (And the right fight is about just compensation, not due process.) However, unfortunately for urban renewal eminent domain takers, the public has conflated the two:
In
I highlight that tag phrase because I believe it is wrong, yet it is that — the self-interested aspect of tax revenue expansion — which has caught fire with the broader public.
Under the measure authored by Representative Bradley H. Jones Jr., the House Republican leader, municipalities would be prevented from taking private property for private development except in cases where the property is ”a substandard, decadent, or blighted open area” under state law.
It’s worth noting that in Kelo, the City of
Geoff Beckwith of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, which lobbies for cities and towns, says the law would handcuff local officials.
”Why blunt that tool? Why take it away, especially since the decisions are being made locally?” Beckwith said.
Well, said the homeowners in Kelo, because local decisions can be self-interested and favor the powerful over the powerless, all dressed up in the guise of ‘economic development.’
”You have to feel for people who want to stay in their homes and like where they are. But if an area has lost thousands of jobs and developing that area would create thousands of jobs and commerce in a community, there is a broader public interest.”
And that remains the rub — when is the neighborhood body politic sick enough to override the homeowner’s property rights?
The city decided to replace the neighborhood with a series of upscale apartment towers. After the project’s top bidder pulled out, the contract was awarded to [a major developer] who, it turns out, had served on [the mayor's] election committee. The new development would be nothing like an urban village: fliers for prospective residents touted the availability of valet service and wine storage, and the advantages of privacy and in-town shopping.
Before long the city had completed the findings it needed to condemn the
Am I talking about some current activity?
But Mr. Peabody, urban renewal eminent domain is completely safe!
No, set your Wayback machine for 1958:
Residents greeted news of the plan with disbelief. Even their representatives were dumbfounded. As Frank Lavine recalls, local pol Joe Lee declared simply, “They wouldn’t dare.”
Lee was wrong. At the beginning, only a few West Enders trickled out of the neighborhood, but soon the 7,000 remaining residents realized that they were alone in their opposition to the project. Recalls Campano, “We were against this whole juggernaut: HUD, the BRA, the mayor, the developers, the papers, and the Archdiocese.” Lavine, who was instrumental in the Save the West End Committee, is more succinct: “We were pissing against the wind.”
West End residents had been promised fair compensation for their property, relocation payments, and decent affordable housing for all who needed it.
Still, many simply refused to go.
When the city stopped collecting trash, they began leaving in larger numbers. Finally, in April 1958, the city formally seized homes and businesses by eminent domain.
A month later the wrecking crews moved in.
So, whatever you may think of the value of urban planning and eminent domain, those who oppose broadening local power have history on their side. Or do they?
In recent years,
Good, of course, but how do we control the local government? Do we really want judges making urban-development decisions? Don’t we want a judicial standard that keeps things out of the courts?
States may use their own constitutions and laws to limit eminent domain powers. Delaware and Alabama have done so since the ruling, explicitly restricting cities’ eminent domain powers to takings for public projects.
This is impressive, since
In
While
Two famous examples of
Entire towns were wiped out when the
Through a series of “buyouts” the inhabitants of these towns were tossed out of their homes in preparation for construction of a reservoir.
Houses were bulldozed, bodies dug up (except for Native Americans), factories demolished and millions acres of trees were cut down. Four towns Dana, Enfield, Greenwich and Prescott were wiped off the face of the earth and seven other towns were affected. A half mile long dam was built on the Swift River in Belchertown MA and one of the longest tunnels in the world was constructed to carry the water a hundred miles to the east. Flooding of the valley started in mid August 1939. The valley slowly filled with water and in 1946 the reservoir was filled to capacity (412 billion gallons) and nearly 40 square miles were covered with water.
Going, going, gone (1927, 1939, and 1989)
Today, if you sail or canoe the lake, you can on a clear day look down through the water and see the old houses.
Aerial view of the east end of
– and the bulldozing of Boston’s West End in the 1960s in the name of urban renewal, are now routinely lamented.
