Call It a Dead End
Pragmatically, Mr. Surfas has no further recourse. Is this bullying? Is this fair for a community to treat one of its private citizens in this manner just because it can? A leading Culver City attorney this morning told thefrontpageonline.com “no” to the first question and, emphatically, “yes” to the second. Possibly the stormiest political debate in small towns and big cities across America this summer encircles the legal right of communities to take private properties for the vague, disputed concept historically known as “public use.” By case law and by two centuries of tradition, said the attorney, who preferred anonymity, the property owner who finds himself in this circumstance does not have a beef coming. Reading from the computer screen on her desk, the attorney said the concept of eminent domain — the right of the government to take private property in exchange for (here we go again) “just compensation” — did not originate with the Founding Fathers. “I believe it goes back to England,” she said. “The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says, ‘Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. This is tacit recognition of a previous empowerment.’ What constitutes public use? There is no argument about taking private property to build a fire station or a library, something that has an unquestioned public use. The debate is whether taking property because it is ‘blighted,’ and because the government believes there is a higher and better use that property can be put to, is a public use. Here is the issue: Is it proper for the government to use its power of eminent domain to acquire private property and then turn it over to a private developer to put up a mixed-use project?” This, said the attorney, is what last year’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court case involving the Connecticut city of Kelo was about. The Court said yes, by 5 to 4, but there is broad-based unhappiness with the verdict. In a concept seemingly jammed with imprecise terms, “blight” often is given as a reason for a government seizing private property. Is Mr. Surfas’ business neighborhood blighted? Another term short on specificity is “redevelopment,” a far more recent government notion. “Redevelopment” gives cities financing powers they lack with merely eminent domain authority. “Redevelopment” is a sweet-sounding abstraction with an extremely broad, some would say elastic, definition.
City Need Not be Specific
Take the case of Mr. Surfas’ four properties, three on the stretch of National Boulevard between Washington Boulevard and Venice Boulevard, and one on Washington. What, you may ask, is City Hall going to do with Mr. Surfas’ properties once the courts bless the one-way transfer into City Hall’s saddle bags? Not clear. In fact, the ultimate usage is unclear. The city may not even know. The buildings are near the planned light rail station — which may or may not ever happen. Whether light rail does or does not come, the city says it does not have a precise plan for the land, and if they did know, the law says the city does not have to disclose it.
