WSJ says that once a finding of "blight" is made, it's anchors away to build whatever the city or a private developer fancies.

A recent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article slams the use of eminent domain to take private property for "economic development" purposes, stating that "Pundits spilled ink declaring that the Founding Fathers were spinning in their graves." The WSJ goes on to report that "This leaves property owners vulnerable to unholy alliances between municipalities and developers, with condemnation processes that can lack transparency and due process."

Whoa, there… UNHOLY alliances? Meaning that members of the Redevelopment Committees may themselves own land in the "redevelopment area" and make back-office deals with the developers for their own personal benefit? Is that possible? You bet!!!

As we’ve discussed before in previous posts, "blight" is the big loophole that municipalities can walk through to give themselves permission to condemn virtually any property, or even multiple properties in an area (as in downtown Newhall). Per the Wall Street Journal, "A half-century of experience has demonstrated only that it is in the eye of the beholder, or perhaps more to the point, in the eye of the POWER HOLDER." [all caps for emphasis]

The WSJ goes on to say, "And Congress conveniently passed statutes that rewarded municipalities with federal dough for slum clearance. Bingo! Cities found ever more blight to remove, often and not coincidentally in neighborhoods inhabited by blacks and Latinos."

Well, now… isn’t that convenient? Take a largely Latino-populated area like downtown Newhall, declare it to be "blighted", and then get REWARDED by the Feds to send these people packing!

Although many states have attempted to pass their own rules regarding the use eminent domain, virtually none have passed anything meaningful. Utah and Florida passed laws to prohibit the taking of property for economic development for any purpose. But, then Utah weakened its law by saying that if 80% of your neighbors want to have your property taken for private use, then it can be done. The WSJ refers to this as a "mob rule", where neighbors can gang up on each other in a lynch mob-type scenario.

Supposedly, eminent domain is NOT meant to be used for economic purposes. However, our very own Newhall Revitalization (Redevelopment) Plan appears to be PURELY economic in purpose, where the City of Santa Clarita’s very own Retail Opportunities Analysis makes inflated claims as to how this redevelopment plan can increase sales tax revenues in the area. However, as the WSJ says, "Even when common sense would dictate that a project is economic in purpose, it can still be pursued under an urban renewal plan, i.e., to eliminate "blight."" In other words, make up a fancy report, misinterpret (or overinflate) the data, sell it to the residents of neighboring areas (who largely don’t care), and then circle the wagons and chase out the "undesirable population".

The Wall Street Journal article concludes with this statement: "Developers will always look for eminent domain bargains, and towns for ways to raise revenue or rid themselves of undesirable populations. It is not hard to imagine a time when they will set their sights on the surest bets — the poor and minorities — resetting eminent domain on its most pernicious historical path."

‘Nuff said… this final WSJ comment certainly puts this situation in a nutshell. So, now the question remains: Are we going to allow this sort of thing to happen in our very own back yard?

The Santa Clarita City Council meeting tonight has an agenda chock-full of eminent domain issues. If you want to have your voice heard on this, take advantage of the opportunity to public participation at this meeting. For more details on tonight’s agenda, click here.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.