I couldn't agree more with the need for very serious limits on the use of public dollars for private development, but the use of eminent domain with its broad definition of "public purpose" and "public use" is actually quite a different matter. The two have been employed together in both Minneapolis and St. Paul, especially when coupled with Tax Increment Financing (TIF) the diverting of future property tax increases from their normal route to public coffers to paying off the bonds for a private development with little or no equity investment by the private entity.
It's important to break down the two. Eminent domain is the legitimate taking of private property for a public purpose so long as the private property owner(s) is (are) justly compensated for it. Only in relatively recent times has the power been used widely to foster new development that may be owned and operated by private persons. The condemnation (a terrible synonym for eminent domain) process has long been the purview of local, state, and federal governments, and it's an area of law critical to community control over land use and zoning matters. This is the power the court majority preserved in its ruling on the New London, CT, case, and it's precisely why you find the court progressives (Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, etc) ruling for the city and not the private property owners (whose cases were argued by a libertarian law group). Their belief is that the power of eminent domain itself was on trial here, and to back away from that very old and entrenched power would have established dangerous new precedent. Public financing of private development may or may not accompany the imposition of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes. And it is the combination of such public transactions that confuse us into linking the two processes. Far too many public purposes have been abandoned by throwing public dollars, usually the city's property tax revenues, at private corporations who can easily afford to build on their own on the basis of pie-in-the-sky promises of increased tax flows and job creation, very few, if any of which are kept. The long-term record for what amounts to corporate welfare is so dismal that the billions cities and other public entities have siphoned away from real public uses have actually cost jobs and tax revenues for up to 50 years apiece. TIF and other public financing schemes are a disaster and have done permanent, untold harm to core cities struggling to compete for economic development - real economic development that actually produce property tax revenues and real jobs that hang around because the private investment up-front is real equity, and more likely to have been made wisely for the long haul, not a short term windfall of public bucks, so easily dismissed as a debt owed the public. With so much privatization of public assets to feed the pockets of already wealthy landowners and corporate contributors, any use of eminent domain for a true public purpose will be suspect and challenged by those who advocate private property rights above all else. But until we demand that our governments stop allowing themselves to be blackmailed by corporations threatening to disappear if the public doesn't feed their voracious appetites for profit at the expense of public needs, the confusion will remain and undermine further the trust we should have in our power to control our public destinies. Eminent domain is a critical power. Public financing of private development is now a shameful travesty. Andy Driscoll Saint Paul -- The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men: Plato "Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity." - Lord Acton -- > From: "Michael Hohmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 09:56:44 -0500 > To: "Bill Cullen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[email protected]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Mpls] eminent domain gets the green light > > Regarding Supreme Court decision supporting eminent domain, Bill Cullen > says, in part: >> This is huge and this is frightening. > > [MH] You've got that right, Bill. It is more important than ever that we > reduce and limit public development subsidies, and improve the transparency > of the development process. It seems that the only projects that get > approved anymore in this town are those that are publicly subsidized. > Privately financed developments are rare and seem to be regularly turned > down by city officials, while publicly financed projects-- dependent upon a > string of public and non-profit agencies, each bringing a different piece of > public money to the table, are routinely on the consent agendas. > > The Planning Commission may approve a privately financed project, only to > see elected officials stop it due to short-term political considerations > (the noisy few). We hear sound bites like, "This is Uptown, not Downtown," > to summarize rejection of a private investment of well in excess of a > hundred million dollars. We see a private property owner told he can't > build a project on a property correctly zoned for the project-- no variances > requested, yet the noisy few complain about traffic and crime > (unsubstantiated at that); the property owner finally wins after costly > appeals because elected officials know they will lose the case in a court of > law (and that might cost them votes, to say nothing of tax dollars). The > publicly financed projects seem to sail through the process, even those > supportive housing and supportive services facilities sited, contrary to > current zoning (1/4 mi spacing), in the usual neighborhoods, under the guise > of the Federal Fair Housing Ammendments Act, where entire neighborhoods are > continually told to 'make reasonable accommodation' from current zoning > laws. The non-profits have their lawyers seated up front, reminding policy > makers they will be sued if the project is denied, which it isn't. I may be > wrong, but I can't remember such a project being denied over the past > several years. This is business as usual in Mpls. > > Private rental vacancies are high and we continue to build subsidized > housing, much of it targeted to households earning 60-80 percent MMI > ($45-60K for family of four). It's the hottest game in town. In 1999, over > half the households in Mpls earned less than $45K annually! The median > household income was $38K in 1999. [Census 2000] Every public deal has > admin costs for the middlemen (up and down the line); and in the end the > only one responsible for anything is the property tax payer. > > Across the country, and here in MPLS too, more and more of the cost of > public service is being pushed down to the local property tax payer. It's > time to wake up folks. Property taxes (paid directly or indirectly) are > very regressive in our urban environment, especially if you are of modest > means and/or on a fixed income. It's not inconceivable that current policy > may force more people out of their homes (due to high property taxes) than > are 'placed' in new 'affordable' units. There's a pattern developing here > and it needs to be changed. > > We need more privately financed development in this city and it's time the > public starts demanding it. Vocal activists come out of the wood work to > oppose private developments, threatening their elected officials with 'lost > votes in the next election' unless they acquiesce and oppose the project. > Where is the public good? Buildings have been knocked down rather than > criminal residents arrested. Private landlords are forced out of town. > Meanwhile the majority of residents are too busy working (and paying ever > higher taxes) to get involved. Too many across the city don't even take the > time to vote every few years. Thus a vocal minority continually reinforces > this trend toward ever more public development and less private development, > city officials roll with the punches, the city's financial situation > continues to deteriorate, and the payer of last resort remains the over > burdened property tax payer. > > We need to grow the tax base on the private dime! It's time folks start > asking who's financing our candidates in this years election, where are the > campaign volunteers coming from, who is developing the campaign messages? > Is anyone looking out for the property tax payer? The buck stops here! > > Mike Hohmann > Linden Hills > independent candidate 13th Ward City Council > http://www.mikeforcitycouncil.org > [EMAIL PROTECTED] REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
