My op ed on condemnation of “blighted” property was published today by the Legal Times, and can be read here.
In the wake of Kelo v. City of New London, there has been a major backlash against condemnations of private property for “economic development,” but not enough attention has been paid to the even greater harm caused by condemnation of supposedly “blighted” property. A brief excerpt:
…[E]ven many critics of Kelo ignore the danger posed by
blight condemnations. In her scathing Kelo dissent, Justice
Sandra Day O’Connor emphasized that she believes that such
takings are constitutional. None of the 11 state supreme courts
that banned Kelo-style economic-development takings have
imposed parallel restrictions on blight takings. And only a handful
of the states that have enacted post-Kelo reform laws restrict
blight condemnations in any meaningful way.
Unfortunately, blight condemnations have most of the same
shortcomings as takings for economic development: They transfer
property to private parties, often fail to help their supposed
beneficiaries, and are vulnerable to exploitation by powerful
interest groups.
Moreover, a ban on economic-development takings is unlikely
to be effective without parallel restrictions on blight condemnations.
Effective reform efforts must address the two major
flaws of current blight takings: overexpansive definitions of
blight and abusive takings in truly blighted areas.