Guest Commentary
It’s been almost eight years since the U.S. Supreme Court’s notorious Kelo vs. New London decision. In one of the most controversial decisions of the modern era, the Supreme Court ruled that the government could forcibly seize private property and hand it over to other private owners, all under the guise of “economic development.” The decision was universally reviled, earning criticisms from everyone from Bill Clinton to Rush Limbaugh.
For her part, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor condemned the decision in her dissent: “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.” Sadly, this “specter of condemnation” continues to intimidate property owners in Colorado.
Just this past September, Denver’s City Council voted to designate 29 city blocks as “blighted,” covering some 85 acres. Adding insult to injury, some of these blighted homes were Victorian houses that are well over a century old. Homeowners and business owners were furious at the designation, since the Denver Urban Renewal Authority now has the power to seize their property with eminent domain. One activist compared blight to “calling someone’s baby ugly.”
One month later in nearby Thornton, that city’s council voted unanimously for an urban renewal project that allows eminent domain for private development. Covering over 664 acres, 290 property parcels will be affected, including three churches, a nursing home, five apartment complexes and many restaurants and offices. Meanwhile, city officials in Fort Collins could seize a Sears with eminent domain.
What’s even more galling is that Colorado has reformed its eminent domain laws, but that reform was clearly not what it should have been if property rights are to be respected. In 2006, the General Assembly passed HB 1411, which amended the definition of “public use.” This was done to ban “the taking of private property for transfer to a private entity for the purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenue.” Although that was a step in the right direction, HB 1411 still allows the government to seize any property deemed “blighted,” which is loosely defined. As we are now seeing in practice, that is a loophole large enough to drive a bulldozer through.
Under Colorado state law (C.R.S. 31-25-103), blight has a very broad definition: it’s an area that “substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare.” These are vague criteria which are easily exploited by overzealous redevelopment and urban renewal agencies.
On top of that, many of the factors that are used to trigger a blight designation are hardly menacing. In Denver, the historic neighborhood of Five Points was declared blighted because light rail is limiting street parking and there was “unusual topography,” like steep slopes and billboards. Meanwhile, those 664 acres in Thornton were declared blighted because there was a “lack of landscaping” and “cracked or uneven sidewalks.” Scary.
Colorado needs to significantly tighten its definition of blight. Not only is protecting property rights the right thing to do, it’s very popular among Democrats, Republicans and independents. Just this past November, Virginia voters overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment that puts strict limits on using eminent domain. By winning almost 75 percent of the vote, this amendment won far more votes than either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney — and in a swing state no less. Coloradans should not have to worry that their home or business could be next on the chopping block. Legislators must close the blight loophole.
Nick Sibilla is a fellow at the Institute for Justice, which litigated the Kelo case on behalf of homeowners and challenges eminent domain abuse nationwide.
No comments:
Post a Comment