A few points about eminent domain, which haven't been stated yet, need some
notice. First eminent domain (ED)is specified in the Fifth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution, "Nor shall private property be taken for public use without
just compensation." The Supreme Court in Kelo did nothing new, just reaffirmed
all previous court cases concerning this phrase in the Constitution. Strict
constructionists, and others opposed to "activist judges" should not find fault
in the Kelo ruling.
Generally, governments do everything possible to avoid using ED. The State of
MN, MNDOT especially, seems to be an exception to this rule. My impression is
that most cities try hard to purchase land, and only use ED as a last resort.
My impression is that the majorities of property takings in St. Paul are
related to tax-delinquent, nuisance, and abandoned properties (TOADS). I also
have the impression that most ED by the City has offered just compensation. The
abuse of ED relates to the unwanted taking, not a just price for the property.
Would someone please correct me if I am wrong about these impressions?
ED has become a problem since local governments' became entrepreneurial land
speculators with local developers. The process of declaring a section of a city
"blighted" and "inviting proposals to redevelop it" (too often using TIF and
sometimes other subsidies--Fingerhut is a good example) makes the city a land
speculator for the purpose of higher property taxes. The Councils'
relationships with developers are "close" to say the least, because this is
simply how the "good government" game is played. The constituencies are simply
acting out the self interests (greed) that make capitalism work. Consequently,
we live with government, through and by the market. Those that dont like the
workings of capitalist markets in highly industrialized countries, are not
likely to like ED.
Note that blight is not obsolescence. In a political context, blight too often
means that the neighborhood does not have the political capital to fight back.
Frequently, those who fight back, get more money, but still must sell their
property to the government.
The current debate on ED focuses on "public use" vs. "public purpose." The
Courts ruled that New London had a public purpose for the beachfront homes it
was taking for ED, and that the purpose was defined in a development plan. No
one seems to argue against public use for roads, military bases, or even
tearing down tall hotels when they are in the flight path of a new runway. The
debate is public purpose, usually the taking of private property for its
redevelopment by a private developer.
The Metropolitan Council has endorsed public use, but not public purpose.
Cities are responding that they will not be able to create the dense
transportation corridors the Council wants, without public purpose. For
decades, cities (and all other levels and branches of government) have promoted
urban redevelopment and the increased tax base for public services as public
purpose. Ensuring that the benefits of public purpose ED are distributed fairly
and without abuse has been problematic, but only noticeable when those with the
power to fight back are affected.
Ultimately, this is a structural issue, not a political one. Republicans in the
suburbs like ED, and Democrats in the core cities like it too. Whoever is in
power at the time of the rebuilding of the CrossTown-35W intersection will like
ED too. If we want vibrant city centers with modern amenities, ED will likely
be necessary.
The State Legislature only wants to garner votes in an election year. The
current bills do not restructure the entrepreneurial city and are likely to do
more harm than good.
Douglas Petty
MacGroveland