« Movie: '28 Days Later' | Main | Heresy: CBS's Tour de France Coverage »
July 14, 2003
Eminent Domain: Use vs. Abuse
In a nearby neighborhood, Norwood, OH, the town council is on the verge of abusing a very powerful governmental right: eminent domain (ED). In a nutshell, ED is defined as "the right of a government to appropriate private property for public use, usually with compensation to the owner." Note the words "public use," for that will be important later on. ED is most commonly used for highways and dams and other "public infrastructure" projects undertaken by local and federal agencies.
The issue at hand is a small area of land bounded by the highway on one side and involving around 100 parcels of land and buildings. Most of the buildings are private homes, but a few that line one busy street are businesses. The Norwood city council wants to declare this small neighborhood "blighted" so that it can force the residents and property owners to sell their property to a team of private developers: Anderson Real Estate and Miller-Valentine Group.
Anderson/Miller-Valentine want to demolish the 73 homes and small businesses in order to build Rookwood Exchange, a $125 million complex of offices, apartments, condominums, shops, restaurants, and parking garage. This would extend the Rookwood Commons/Pavilion developments further along the I-71 corridor.
The Rookwood developments are straight out of some suburban nightmare. Full of retail chain restaurants and stores, like Bed, Bath & Beyond, Abercrombie & Fitch, and Longhorn Steakhouse, these developments do not reflect the uniqueness of the neighborhoods that surround them. The surrounding neighborhoods feature small, independently owned restaurants and businesses with a lot of character -- exactly the opposite of those establishments that the developers hope will occupy the new development. Moreover, these dense commercial centers create horrific traffic snarls by forcing several times more cars through intersections that were originally designed to handle simple residential traffic.
Beyond the aesthetics and quality of life issues, is there a legal problem with this scenario? It depends who you ask. Going back to the definition of eminent domain, the phrase "public use" now becomes important. The Norwood council insists that the development is important to the public good because it brings in much-needed tax revenue. This is "public use" by their definition, since the public will use the tax revenue in the form of roads and schools.
However, I can't see any direct "public use" of the development that Anderson/Miller-Valentine have in mind -- all the new structures will be privately owned. How then am I, a member of the public, supposed to make use of it? Are shopping and dining now valid forms of "public use?" If so, this bodes very badly for America. Property owners beware: no matter how well you keep your home and land maintained, if a developer wants it and can offer your community more tax dollars by building on your land than you already pay in property taxes, you too could find yourself "blighted" and forced to sell out. If this scares you as much as it scares me, check out norwoodblight.com, a website devoted to tracking and fighting this anti-citizen action.
Posted by Craig in Society / Politics