Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

This right is wrong, cities are deciding

Governments can now seize property for private development. But some cities are waiving that privilege.

By CARRIE WEIMAR
Published March 19, 2006

The day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, Bob Hackworth's phone started to ring.

His constituents were frightened and angry about the court's decision to allow a Connecticut city to seize property and bulldoze it for private development. What would this mean for their homes?

Hackworth, a Dunedin city commissioner who is now the mayor-elect, told them such a scenario was unlikely in their tiny municipality.

"I failed miserably in trying to reassure them," Hackworth said. "I think there was just a lot of fear and concern in the community about this."

So Hackworth decided to act. He proposed a ballot question to change the city charter to prohibit the city from using eminent domain to acquire property for private development.

With the move, Dunedin joins a growing list of communities taking steps to counteract the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Kelo vs. New London, Conn.

While the Florida Legislature races to create a referendum to change the state Constitution, these localities aren't waiting. Oldsmar passed an ordinance banning the use of eminent domain for private development last year. Palm Bay and Lake Helen passed similar ordinances, according to the Coalition for Property Rights in Orlando.

Critics say it's not a wise move. These governments could be tossing out an important power of local government that will someday hinder redevelopment in their communities.

But supporters argue these governments are helping property owners and guarding an essential, constitutional right.

Polls show voters overwhelmingly support the efforts: On Tuesday, Dunedin's referendum passed with 66 percent of the vote.

The Supreme Court case started when Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in Connecticut filed suit after the city announced plans to bulldoze their homes to make way for a hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials argued the development served a public purpose by boosting economic development that outweighed the rights of the property owners.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 for the city.

The decision sent shock waves through the country.

"This is a core American value," said Carol Saviak, executive director of the Coalition for Property Rights. "Our Founding Fathers were strong believers in property rights."

Saviak has been working with the Florida Legislature to craft language to counteract the Kelo decision statewide. She applauded municipalities for taking the matter into their own hands and doing something politicians typically avoid at all costs: giving up power.

"The Supreme Court told them they could," Saviak said. "These local governments are saying, "We shouldn't.' "

It's a smart political move, she added. An October Mason-Dixon poll showed 88 percent of Florida voters disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision, Saviak said. The poll also showed 89 percent of voters would support the state Legislature taking steps to counteract the ruling.

But although opposing Kelo is popular, it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, especially for local governments that may need to resurrect areas plagued by blight, said John Wolfe, St. Petersburg's city attorney.

"If they want to redevelop something in the future, they're going to be in trouble," Wolfe said.

The last time St. Petersburg used eminent domain for private development was in the early 1990s, when 6 acres were assembled for Bay Plaza, an ill-fated $200-million outdoor shopping plaza. The land was later used to create BayWalk.

It was used in Tampa to acquire land for parking garages in Ybor City.

Florida is one of eight states where the use of eminent domain for economic development is prohibited unless it is to eliminate blight.

Private enterprise is the natural partner for fighting blight, Wolfe said. Dunedin and other municipalities that limit its use lose a valuable tool for revitalizing dilapidated areas, he said.

"What is the government going to do in a blighted area?" Wolfe asked. "You're not going to acquire the land and then build six city halls."

State Rep. Everett Rice, the former Pinellas sheriff and candidate for attorney general, doesn't buy Wolfe's argument.

He calls blight a "moving target - it can be whatever you want it to be."

Rice is sponsoring a referendum to protect property rights in light of the Kelo case. If government wants to clean up blight, it should find a different method, he said.

"It's a question of redevelopment vs. property rights," Rice said. "If it's a true slum, they can use code enforcement, police powers and the free market to get rid of it."

Michael Allan Wolf, a professor at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law, said there's nothing wrong with trying to change the state Constitution to protect homeowners. In fact, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his majority opinion that states are free to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened.

But Wolf said he fears some of the municipalities are rushing to judgment unnecessarily.

"A lot of this is symbolic," Wolf said. "It is used to calm down members of the public who have been alarmed by propaganda following the Kelo decision that have exaggerated the effect of the court's decision."

Don Bohr, an Oldsmar City Council member, said he stands behind the vote the council made last year to limit eminent domain.

The council voted 4-1 in July to stop future councils from invoking the city's right to seize property unless it's for a public use. Bohr said he hopes other localities follow their lead.

"The Supreme Court made a stupid mistake," Bohr said. "People work hard for property. Why should government be able to come in and take it?"

Carrie Weimar can be reached at 727 892-2273 or cjohnson@sptimes.com

[Last modified March 19, 2006, 01:06:13]