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.