The issue of eminent domain has come into play again among the presidential candidates. As I listen to the various debates and interviews, there seems to be much confusion over the distinction made between whether the property to be taken is to be used for the private benefit of the person taking same, or whether the property under consideration is needed for public use.
I have noticed that the Democrat candidates have not mentioned the issue and I have read in my research that controversies over the right of eminent domain seem to be more in the “domain” of the Republican party.
Be that as it may, again I am not writing to uphold or put down any candidate, but just to give you some more information as you do
your own research to come to your own conclusions.
This is the second article I have written on the subject, and I am focusing on the issue of eminent domain as it stands in the State of Missouri.
The Castle Coalition, a nationwide grassroots property activism project by the Institute for Justice , graded each state in 2006 based on eminent domain legislative changes which expand and protect property rights.
The Coalition gave Missouri a “D” when it came to property owners’ protection against eminent domain.
This action took place following the controversial Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of London, wherein the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible “public use” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In essence the Court said that a local government can take the private property of one person and give it to another private entity under certain conditions.
As a result of the Kelo decision, Missouri, along with several other states, decided to initiate legislative reform to help curb eminent domain abuse. In 2006, the Missouri legislature adopted House Bill 1944, which states specifically that private property can’t be condemned solely for economic development.
The bill also established an Office of Ombudsman within the Department of Economic Development to assist property owners who might be confronted with the eminent domain process.
The bill was flawed, however, because among other things it allowed for the possibility that entire neighborhoods and areas can be designated as “blighted” and therefore subject to condemnation.
The word “condemnation” describes the process by which a governmental agency takes private property for public use as opposed to the meaning we usually think of, i.e. a condemned building that has been officially judged not safe for people to live in or to use.”
The word “blighted” has been defined elsewhere in the context of an eminent domain case as an area that, in its present condition and use and, by reason of the presence of at least four of the following factors, 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.
Obviously, this word could be interpreted very loosely depending on the area, and refers to much more than what we would normally call a slum area with deteriorating structures, etc.
The Missouri General Assembly thereafter enacted Section 523-271 in an effort to limit the power of a condemning authority to take property for economic development purposes.
This leads us to the Missouri Supreme Court decision in the case of State of of Missouri ex rel Jackson v. Dolan involving a Regional Port Authority which operated a port district.
The following information on this case is taken from The Missouri Policy and Law website.
The Port Authority owns between 500 and 600 acres of land in this district where it serves as a land developer and leases land to private companies. It provides streets,sewers, utilities, railroad tracks and access to the harbor contained within the Port.
It also operates a six mile railroad that connects with the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe and the railroad enables businesses in the area to transfer freight between barges and trains at the Port Authority’s harbor.
A port Authority has the power to acquire property of any kind or nature within its district necessary for its purposes by using the power of eminent domain.
In order to expand its facilities, the Port Authority decided to build a loop track on land that it already owned that would enable it to handle unit trains of around 100 cars that come from one shipper that are headed to one particular destination. The Port Authority sought to purchase a 30.65-acre parcel of land owned by Velma Jackson and Alicia Seabaugh to use as a storage facility to handle liquid products to be transloaded from rail to barge or vise versa.
The property owners refused to sell the land and the Port Authority filed a petition for condemnation. The case went to the Missouri Supreme Court.
The Court held in June 2013 that under Section 523.271, the Port Authority was barred from taking the land because it would be used “solely for economic development” which is defined as “a use of a specific piece of property or properties which would provide an increase in the tax base, tax revenues, employment, and general economic health.
Comments