Revitalization

Developer greed is happening… an article in the SF Chronicle today addresses property owners fighting with developers in the East Bay, while California liberals are quickly putting together bills that would penalize those using eminent domain and force restrictions on developers.

I read the transcript of an eminent domain debate on PBS from June this year between John Norquist (president of the Congress on New Urbanism and former Milwaukee mayor) and Bart Peterson (vp of the National League of Cities and current Indianapolis mayor). Peterson agreed with the Supreme Court’s decision that developers can seize property for private use, given that it promotes economic development (as loose and broad as I think that term may be). Peterson says that the Supreme Court is just reaffirming what has already been defined as “eminent domain.” Even if that’s the case, an affirmation is a bold, green light to developers that anyone’s private property is not necessarily an obstable anymore. How scary is that for the community of homeowners and business owners? No longer can some feel safe in the attainment of their asset wealth, particularly if that asset is in prime developer territory. So what if you get bought out with “just compensation” for your home or business? There’s something more to your assets than just money. And, yes, that brings up the problem of quantifying your asset value and whether you can actually get “just” compensation. I think it’s a scary affirmation made by the Supreme Court.

The flip side, or maybe more accurately the bigger picture, of the Supreme Court story is that the 5-4 decision is really about who makes the decision to harness and restrict the use of eminent domain, not about how eminent domain is defined. It is what it is. Power to take over property while providing compensation to current owner. The Supreme Court isn’t telling us that they want people to lose their homes and their businesses to developers armed with multiplexes, big boxes, and high-class condos. Perhaps the Court’s decision is really about trusting that cities and states will regulate the use of eminent domain. I don’t agree with what happened to Kelo as a result of the decision, but I can see that the Court has high expectations of U.S. cities and states to take into serious consideration the consequences of the decision. Destroying to create for the public good and destroying to create for the private are different animals. We hope that cities and planning agencies see and realize that uprooting the homes and businesses of community members for private profit is not good, community-based planning.

This is an amazing organization. They have created fascinating, concrete results in the arena of economic development and affordable housing and continue to lobby for the community.

Powerful work, real influence, and strongly grounded in their mission. This is where I start in researching models of organizing and policy work that bring about positive and equitable results.

Home

Excerpt from “The Politics of Land Grabbing” by David Morris, AlterNet:

“All states have statutes or constitutional provisions governing the conditions under which governments can take private property. Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky and California significantly limit that authority.

A 1976 California court opinion describes their approach.

Eminent domain “never can be used just because the (city) considers that it can make better use or planning of an area than its present use or plan. … (I)t is not sufficient to merely show that the area is not being put to its optimum use, or that the land is more valuable for other uses” to justify condemnation of property.”

The Supreme Court recently ruled 5-4 that, whether property owners like it or not, cities can seize private property (homes and businesses) for private development.

If you’ve been following Kelo vs. New London (a case borne out of Connecticut between property owners and city developers fighting for land and what positive economic development should be for New London, CT), this Supreme Court ruling means a huge defeat for Susette Kelo and other property owners who will lose their homes to the subsequent development of a hotel, health club, and offices connected to Pfizer in New London. The argument is that these developments are private developments and not for the public good; therefore, property rights are being seized from one owner and just given to the profit of another. The city argues that these developments are economic public goods, meaning that the tax revenues gained from the office, health club, and hotel will go to the city and eventually back to the city residents and more job opportunities will be created.

Eminent domain is supposed to be used to help bolster a particular neighborhood economy by freeing “blighted” land for the creation of public goods (a health center, cultural activity node, youth-oriented business, etc.). Interestingly enough, the land that Kelo and other property owners in her area own do not seem blighted, and are instead, just prime territory for developers to create profitable enterprises. Cities use eminent domain to create developments that raise city tax revenue and generally create job opportunities (i.e. through sales taxes paid by businesses implemented on property). Such added policies as first-source hiring, which gives community residents job priority, are supposed to help make sure economic improvement targets the community being affected. How effective these policies are… I’m not really sure. The fear of the community for its rights and property has generally led the city to use eminent domain rarely and as a last resort, as is my understanding. Making the decision to use eminent domain evokes two questions: How do we clearly define an economic public good? How do we compare the profits of a development for an area to the individual rights and economic, social profits/assets lost to the original owner? Our Bayview Hunters Point Project Area Committee (PAC), who advises and leads the SF Redevelopment Agency on the creation, establishment, and execution of the Redevelopment Plan for Bayview Hunters Point has decided not to use eminent domain if they can help it.