It’s all about the meaning of “blight”…eminent domain.
Previously I posted about how quietly using CRAs, Community Redevelopment Agencies, has given states the power of eminent domain over areas they deem to be “blighted.” Our city has four areas under the control of such agencies, and they get to decide what is blighted. It is an awesome power.
My previous post about eminent domain and CRAs.
I found more on this subject today. It explains how Florida, for one, can claim to have laws in place to protect against seizure of property under eminent domain…..the catch is they limit it to “blight”. And they get to define what “blight” is. Blight can be anything developers want it to be in Florida.
States move to blunt effect of Supreme Court eminent-domain ruling
CHICAGO — “Alarmed by the prospect of local governments seizing homes and turning the property over to developers, lawmakers in at least half the states are rushing to blunt last month’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling expanding the power of eminent domain.”
“In Texas and California, legislators have proposed constitutional amendments to bar government from taking private property for economic development. Politicians in Alabama, South Dakota and Virginia likewise hope to curtail government’s ability to condemn land.”
“The Constitution says governments cannot take private property for public use without “just compensation.” Governments have traditionally used their eminent domain authority to build roads, reservoirs and other public projects. But for decades, the court has been expanding the definition of public use, allowing cities to employ eminent domain to eliminate blight. Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington already forbid the taking of private property for economic development except to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly on the question.”
“Illinois state Sen. Steve Rauschenberger, a Republican who is considering a run for governor, said the state’s blight laws need to be more restrictive.
“The statutory definition of blight in Illinois is broader than the Mississippi River at its mouth,” he said. “They have taken everything from underdeveloped lakefront property to open green-grass farmfields as being defined as blighted.”
I hate that I quoted a Republican on this, but he is right. Senator Bill Nelson is trying for a bill to limit its use as well. But it still all comes down to the definition of “blight.” That is going to be the catch.
The best definition I found of “blighted” is this:
“Affected by blight–anything that mars, or prevents growth or prosperity”
I found this website from Fernandino Beach, Florida. It is a presentation of their attempt to define blight, and there are many pictures there of what is considered such. Some do not look like blight to me.
Determining Blight, with photos
