Some old thoughts on Kelo

It's a bit late to add onto the blogosphere heap piling onto the Supreme Court's Kelo decision, but I thought I'd offer up something I wrote awhile back, in Knoxville's Metro Pulse, before the ruling was handed down. Partly because I think what has gotten lost in the debate over what constitutes "public use" is an even bigger problem: the use of "blight" as a blanket designation. Sure a neighborhood may be "blighted" but it is often only a small number of properties dragging the rest down. Blanket condemnation, rather than help cities, does more harm, eroding the confidence of the one thing most cities need more of: small property owners:

Viagra for Neighborhoods

A developer in New London, CT—home to Pfizer, the makers of Viagra—wants to erect something big on the former whaling port’s old waterfront. I forget exactly what—a planetarium, maybe. Or a convention center hotel, perhaps… You know how it is.


However, it seems that a somewhat battered and blue-collar neighborhood, home to the feisty descendents of Portuguese fishermen and a smattering of Pfizer yuppies that went trolling for Pfixer-uppers, inconveniently occupies the same stretch of waterfront. So the city of New London has graciously tried to use its eminent domain power to run off the riff-raff and clear the site, since it will generate more tax revenue for the city’s coffers (and the front-end cost of running a hundred or so homeowners out of town? Well, why quibble?). The homeowners, understandably less inclined to be civic-minded, filed suit. The case is currently winding its way through the U.S. Supreme Court where the Bush administration (“ownership society” and Republican property-rights rhetoric aside) has filed briefs in support of the city and the developers (NOTE: I was in error, the Bush administration considered filing a brief but ultimately declined). Which, predictably, has led to lots of Internet chatter debating whether eminent domain is ever justified if the end result benefits the private sector.


Well, in my opinion, the New London case is certainly an egregious example, a simple attempt by the developer to do an end run around the real estate market. But, in small doses, eminent domain can pump new life into limp real estate.


Take this George Barber-designed Victorian in Parkridge, for example. Cut up into apartments, run through the slumlord rental wringer, condemned and abandoned, six years ago this house was a wreck. But it was still private property, even if the owner seemed satisfied to let it sit and rot. So the city stepped in, using its eminent domain authority to acquire the house and sell it to a private owner, in this case a small-scale developer who totally restored the house and sold it to a new homeowner.


The private sector profited, but there was also public benefit. Not only does the place generate more taxes (which, unlike the slumlord, the new owner actually paid) the restoration transformed what was once a rundown ruin into a showstopper that stacks up against the finest Fourth and Gill or Old North Knoxville has to offer.


From the five fireplaces complete with tile, grates and oak mantles (salvaged by Knox Heritage from several houses demolished in Fort Sanders) to the beautifully refinished hardwood floors, ladder-back doors and the original built-in cupboard in the butler’s pantry, the house is loaded with historic detail. There’s a clawfoot tub in the master bath, too. Modern updates from the restoration in 2000 include a new kitchen with adjacent breakfast room, laundry, central heat and air, plumbing and electrical, dimensional shingle roof and guttering. In fact, the only thing left undone is the large two-story stable out back—1,400 square feet of additional storage space that could be converted into a garage/guesthouse, studio or workshop. 


Who knows, if New London exercised more eminent domain of this sort, the city might not be in the sort of financial fix that makes it easy prey for developers proposing big silver-built projects whose risks often outweigh returns.