The Kelo Backlash Continues
Contrary to popular belief, the Kelo decision, terrible though it was, didn't really make new law. It ratified the status quo. For decades, cities have been taking private property under eminent domain, only to hand it over to private developers. The general public just had no idea how big the problem was until the Supreme Court said the practice was OK. Now politicians, including some who were previously fine with Kelo-style takings, are having to deal with a riled up public. The San Diego Union Tribune reports on one example:
Hit with scattered horror stories but convinced from her experiences on the San Diego City Council that eminent domain can be a valuable tool for progress, state Sen. Christine Kehoe says it's time to rethink how local governments use — and sometimes abuse — their broad powers of condemnation.
The San Diego Democrat has introduced legislation that includes an immediate two-year moratorium on seizing owner-occupied housing under the banner of eminent domain.
In doing so, Kehoe aligns with a growing number of lawmakers — both liberal and conservative — who are demanding a fresh look at eminent domain after a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a Connecticut city's right to evict middle-class homeowners to pave the way for a waterfront hotel and convention center to support a $300 million research facility for Pfizer.
In the Sacramento Bee, Claire Cooper surveys proposals, including Kehoe's fairly wimpy one, to change California law to give property owners a bit more protection. There's a dispute, she notes, over how widespread the takings are.
Timothy Sandefur, representing the Pacific Legal Foundation, testified that California agencies condemn private property to benefit private developers "eight times as often" as Connecticut agencies do.
Michael Berger, a Los Angeles lawyer, said the statistics on condemnations have been understated, because most property owners sell out to redevelopment agencies before condemnation proceedings are instituted against them.
But Sacramento attorney Joe Coomes, testifying for the California Redevelopment Association, said redevelopment projects in the state rarely include residential neighborhoods.
He and Bill Higgins, a land-use expert associated with the League of California Cities, warned against passing new laws that might hobble vital infrastructure projects and the ability of cities to clean up contaminated properties where owners refuse to take responsibility.
Focusing on the threat to owner-occupied homes may, indeed, miss the point. When people lose their businesses to redevelopment schemes, they aren't all that much happier.
Here in Texas, I note that my former colleague Rich Phillips, who did a stint as the Reason Foundation's public affairs director, is running for the state legislature and, judging from his website, he's making Kelo a central issue. Amid the usual boilerplate about supporting education, prosperity, and families is the following strong and specific statement:
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses. As a result, cities now have the power to bulldoze your home for private development such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate more tax revenue. The ruling is a signal that we need to have the courage and will to defend our core principles and values. This is not America. And this is not Texas.
I doubt that Rich will be the only candidate to make this an issue, in Texas or elsewhere.