« Review and Comment: Taking Stock at 100 | Main | On Just Two of the Self-serving Fibs Told at Ratner's Groundtaking Ceremony »
March 18, 2010
IF YOU CAN’T DEFINE IT, YOU CAN’T USE IT: PART 1, THE BLIGHT-LINE TEST
Affordable Housing Institute: US
by David A. Smith
This must-read Part 1 of a two-part series examines the use of eminent domain for purposes of economic development or urban renewal and its reliance on the murky definition of "blight." It includes a fascinating explanation of the landmark 1954 Supreme Court case Berman vs. Parker, a ruling that, in the ensuing half-century-plus, has been bastardized to justify just about any property condemnation. Compare the conditions outlined in Berman to conditions today in Prospect Heights to see just how twisted blight definitions have become.
Indeed, what seems an intractable policy problem – when is ED4ED (eminent domain for economic development) permissible, and when must it be prohibited? – can be reduced to a problem of boundary –what is blight? In turn, the entire problem, over which so many hours of legal wrestling have been held, can be solved easily – the fuzzy boundary has to be construed against the party with power, so either define blight objectively and observably, or eliminate it as a valid reason.
To see why, we must descend the rabbit hole of current jurisprudence, in particular the way ‘blight’ has been redefined out of all observable meaning (Part 1 of this post), and then resurface elsewhere to see how ED4ED is requisite for urban improvement (Part 2), and hence how to reconcile the competing pressures.
...Under Berman, a Supreme Court enraptured with the promise of economic development allowed the District of Columbia Redevelopment Authority to demolish and rebuild a large chunk of southwestern Washington, based on the finding of ‘blight’, which in the 1954 decision was concluded to exist because:
“64.3% of the dwellings were beyond repair, 18.4% needed major repairs, only 17.3% were satisfactory; 57.8% of the dwellings had outside toilets, 60.3% had no baths, 29.6% lacked electricity, 82.2% had no wash basins or laundry tubs, 83.8% lacked central heating.”
I think anyone today would agree that even in 1954, properties without indoor plumbing, central heating, or running water, constituted blight. Indeed, under today’s laws – absent in 1954 – those buildings could be condemned as unsanitary.
NoLandGrab: Fast forward 56 years, and now "blight" means you might have a couple feathery cracks in your sidewalk or your pristine home is built to less than 60% of its allowable size. Oh, and Bruce Ratner has designs on it.
Posted by eric at March 18, 2010 12:28 PM