The post ‘Little Pink House’ Author Jeff Benedict Tells Story of Kelo Eminent Domain Case in Kansas City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Show-Me Institute has argued, since its inception, that Missouri needs strong and clearly articulated property rights that defend the state’s citizens from eminent domain. You can read a few of our studies and testimonies here, here, here, and here.

The post Need for Wariness Regarding Eminent Domain Use appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The public’s reaction to the Kelo decision was immediate and impassioned, making the case one of the most reviled Supreme Court opinions in recent history. Citizens throughout the nation demanded that their state governments act to make sure their property rights were secure. As a result, 42 states passed at least one bill in response to Kelo, although some bills (such as the eminent domain "reform" passed in Missouri) were far less effective than others.

Regrettably, the Supreme Court marked this anniversary by announcing today that it will not consider a case that might have given them the chance to scale back some of the damage done by Kelo. Suzette Kelo, on the other hand, is helping to spearhead the continuing effort to see property rights protected in this country, and she was present for the grand reopening of the little pink house that was at the center of the controversy. It has been relocated to another part of the city, where it will stand as a monument to the struggle that she and her neighbors shared with hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens who are threatened with eminent domain. And, perhaps unsurprisingly, three years after New London won its case by persuading five justices that the displacement of these tax-paying property owners was necessary to complete the city’s revitalization, the "redevelopment site" remains a wasteland.

The post Kelo v. New London, Three Years Later appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Unfortunately, as has been demonstrated by a recent court decision, Missouri was among the states whose eminent domain reforms merely rearranged deck chairs on the Titanic. Unless the Missouri Supreme Court proved willing to restore the property rights guaranteed by the state’s Constitution, cities and agencies across the state could continue to take perfectly normal properties in order to give them away for the profit of a governmentally preferred owner. With last week’s unfortunate decision in City of Arnold v. Tourkakis, (and kudos to Nick for an excellent post on this topic) it seems unlikely that the Missouri Supreme Court is willing to prevent the eminent domain abuse that currently plagues this state.

This abandonment of property rights is deeply unsettling. As a nation — and as individual states — Americans adopted Bills of Rights in order to make sure that certain essential liberties would never be subject to restriction or elimination. Among those freedoms is the assurance that governments have no right to take away someone’s property unless it is required for the construction of a road or public building. The real-life consequences when the government does take someone’s property illustrate why this power mustbe tightly limited.

Eminent domain is rarely threatened against wealthy people or those who can fight back. Instead, the usual targets are communities composed of minorities, the poor, and/or the elderly. In the middle of the 20th century, cities so regularly used eminent domain against black neighborhoods that the practice was commonly referred to as "Negro removal." That offensive label eventually fell out of use, but poor black communities continue to be condemned far more frequently than white communities. A 1989 study estimated that of 10,000 families that Baltimore displaced in the name of removing blight, fully 90 percent were African-American. Mindy Fullilove, an expert on the impact of eminent domain on minority communities, estimates that more than 1,600 black neighborhoods have been destroyed nationwide.

But then there are elderly people. In Kelo v. New London, Wilhelmina Dery was an 87-year-old still living in her family home, in which she was born. All she wanted was to live out her final days in those beloved, familiar settings. She eventually did get her wish, but only because she died before the city got its chance to kick her out of her home.

In Norwood, Ohio, the city took the residence of Carl and Joy Gamble, an older couple who received their condemnation notice just days after they were finally able to retire. They were uprooted from the home in which they had raised their family and built their American Dream, and separated from their nearby family and friends, after which they moved into a small apartment with a daughter in Kentucky. After a grueling three-year legal war, the Ohio Supreme Court vindicated their rights, but the stress drove Carl to his grave and left Joy in such delicate health that she couldn’t return to the home she had sacrificed so much to save.

I was recently told about an elderly couple in Rolla who weren’t physically able to cope with a move when they were threatened with eminent domain. The wife had Alzheimer’s disease and the husband was terrified to complicate her dementia by moving her to an unfamiliar environment. Unmoved by their plight, the city tried to make it look like they were just holding out for more money. One councilmember said they should just move to a nursing home.

Someone’s home represents their stability and shelter, both in physical and emotional ways. It is the centering location in their life, the place to which they should be able to return each day and know that they have their own place in the world. These things are especially precious for people who can claim ownership of very little else. But rather than protecting the rights of these citizens, both courts and legislatures have been content to sacrifice their security in the name of "progress," or — more coarsely — so they can be replaced with a wealthier, "more desirable" class of people.

Eminent domain abuse is not just unconstitutional — it is unjust, immoral, and abhorrent. And, assuming that Missouri’s lawmakers and courts will continue to stand by as more and more home and business owners are wrecked by these abuses, the people of this state will have no choice but to
amend the state Constitution in the hopes of restoring the security that should be an American birthright.

The post Missouri’s Kelo appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One year ago today, in the case of Kelo v. New London, the Supreme Court ruled that local governments have wide latitude to transfer property from one private party to another for purposes of “economic development.” The public was outraged. In response, politicians across the nation pledged to enact state legislation to strengthen property rights. Last month, the legislature passed House Bill 1944 into law, which Governor Blunt touted as “protecting the rights of responsible property owners.”

Unfortunately, compared to other states, Missouri’s legislation leaves a lot to be desired. Florida offers a particularly striking contrast. Thanks to action by Florida lawmakers, property owners in the Sunshine State now enjoy robust protections against the abuse of eminent domain for private gain. Missouri property owners, on the other hand, got only crumbs.

Probably the most serious loophole for eminent domain abuse is “blight,” which has become a virtual blank check for city governments to seize private property. One notorious example is in Clayton, one of the most prosperous cities in the St. Louis metro area. At the behest of the Centene Corporation, which wants to build a new headquarters, the city of Clayton is attempting to use eminent domain to force out several small business owners down the street from the company’s current headquarters. They claim that the buildings that house these businesses are blighted, but the buildings don’t look noticeably different from the buildings around them. Those property owners simply had the misfortune of owning property that a larger company wanted.

The new Missouri law does little or nothing to prevent such abuses. The use of eminent domain for the elimination of blight or substandard conditions is still permitted, and no changes are made to the current “anything goes” definition of blight. In contrast, Florida’s reform bans the use of eminent domain to eliminate allegedly blighted conditions. If Centene was located in Florida, it would have to find voluntary ways to acquire the land it wants.

Another example of “blight” abuse occurred in Sunset Hills. The city condemned the entire neighborhood of Sunset Manor because a handful of properties had minor problems. The project fell through due to the developer’s inability to finance the project, and the area has been left in a much worse condition than before.

The new Missouri law would have done little to prevent the Sunset Hills fiasco. If a “preponderance” of the properties in an area are blighted, the legislation allows every parcel in that area to be taken–even those in perfect condition. In contrast, Florida municipalities are only permitted to use eminent domain for truly public purposes such as public roads, parks and utility systems. For truly blighted, slum-ridden and nuisance properties, Florida law allows municipalities to use building codes and nuisance law to force homeowners to eliminate nuisance conditions–powers that are far less subject to abuse than eminent domain. In short, Florida’s legislation would have prevented the Sunset Hills fiasco, but Missouri’s legislation leaves private property vulnerable.

The Missouri law does provide a few token concessions to property owners. Farms are protected from blight takings, and the law provides additional compensation in some cases. But until the “blight” loophole is closed, Missouri property rights will continue to be in danger. Give any property enough time and it will naturally become “blighted” by the terminology currently used in Missouri. Older buildings can become blighted simply because they were built according to different standards with different technology. As long as the law permits an open-ended definition of blight, none of our homes or businesses is safe.

Florida’s legislation is a model for serious eminent domain reform in Missouri and across the nation. Florida’s lawmakers listened to the overwhelming public outrage about the Kelo decision and outlawed eminent domain abuse for private gain. In contrast, Missouri’s lawmakers ducked the hard questions, preferring to tinker around the edges instead. Property owners in Missouri deserve better.

Timothy B. Lee is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute. Shaida Dezfuli is pursuing a master’s degree in public policy at the University of Missouri, St. Louis.

The post Property Rights Still in Danger a Year After Kelo appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Tuesday’s recall of St. Louis Alderman Thomas Bauer puts all Missouri public officials on notice: voters won’t put up with politicians who abuse the power of eminent domain for the benefit of well-connected private developers. Voters in the 24th Ward were outraged after Bauer attempted to seize several homes and businesses at the corner of Manchester and McCausland in order to make room for a QuikTrip gas station.

It’s inspiring to see ordinary Missourians standing up for their rights in the political process, but the fact that the effort got as far as it did only highlights how the courts have been shirking their duty to protect private property. With Tuesday’s victory under their belts, Missouri property owners should keep up the pressure on elected officials to reform the state’s eminent domain system. Homeowners shouldn’t be forced to take the drastic step of recalling their elected officials just to keep their homes.

Eminent domain, the power of government officials to seize private property, is supposed to be used for public infrastructure like roads and courthouses. The United States Constitution says that property may only be taken “for public use,” and only with “just compensation.” But over the years, that power has been abused by local officials who define “public use” in increasingly questionable ways.

The issue reached the Supreme Court this summer in the case of Kelo v. New London. The city of New London, Connecticut, sought to condemn more than 100 private homes and businesses to make room for new research facility being planned by drug maker Pfizer. The only “public use” the city could cite was “economic development”—in essence, that the new owners would pay higher property taxes than the old ones.

The court ruled for the city in a bitterly divided 5-4 decision. In an eloquent dissent, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor charged that as a result of the decision, “The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.” Bauer’s QuikTrip boondoggle demonstrates the truth of O’Connor’s warning. He claims that the project qualifies as a “public use” because QuikTrip has promised to pay for a new right-turn lane at the intersection. But it’s not clear why it’s necessary to condemn several homes and businesses just to make room for a turn lane. And if chipping in some money for public infrastructure transforms any private development into a public use, then none of our homes or businesses are safe.

Fortunately for Missourians, help may be on the way. The Kelo decision focused on the protections available under the United States Constitution, but individual states are free to enact stronger protections for property rights at the state level. Governor Blunt has created a Task Force on Eminent Domain, which will make recommendations in December on how to reform Missouri’s eminent domain system.

It’s great that voters responded when one elected official stepped over the line, but the fact that the recall was necessary shows the inadequacy of Missouri’s legal protections for private property. Missouri’s eminent domain system needs to be fixed so that homeowners can once again be sure that their rights will be upheld in court. Our laws shouldn’t allow politicians like Thomas Bauer to play political games with their constituents’ homes and businesses.

Timothy B. Lee is an editor at the Show-Me Institute.

The post Bauer Recall Shows Demand for Eminent Domain Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.