Shattering \u27Blight\u27 and the Hidden Narratives that Condemn

Tilting at windmills is an expression used to describe Don Quixote’s battle against perceived giants that everyone else sees merely as windmills. This expression can also describe the predicament of St. Louis Place property owners who fought against a combination of case law, statutes, governmental condemnation decisions and an unflattering narrative to save their property. In the end, St. Louis Place property owners might as well have been fighting windmills. Since Berman v. Parker, legal scholars have challenged the definition of the term blight and the manner in which condemnation takings are used as revitalization tools in distressed communities. Attempts to narrow takings doctrine in the economic development context has had limited legislative success since the Court’s decision in Kelo v. New London, but takings due to a blight designation have largely been accepted as settled law. Part II explores the problem presented by blight terminology and the case law and the statutory regime used to justify blight takings. In this section, the author asserts that the amorphous definition of blight, flawed decision-making, and false narratives, have led to the condemnation of properties in the most vulnerable communities. Moreover, Part II provides a snapshot of blight scenarios occurring across the country and why the settled nature of takings based on blight should be challenged. The takings, based on a blight designation, continue to be a serious national problem and a doctrine that is especially devastating for underprivileged and communities of color. This current state of the law provides unwarranted comfort for the judiciary to defer to state or local legislative bodies and for legislatures to rely on overly broad statutory terminology. Local stakeholders that desire to remove the “blight” of these communities also utilize the precedent and add to the inflammatory narratives. Thus, we pursue the call for legislative reform and a meaningful shift in the taking doctrine as applied in blight cases. To take property from one group and replace the property with newer improvements for the benefit of another group is questionable. Even the justification that a property owner purportedly has received due process and just compensation is not a satisfactory rationale for continuing current condemnation practice. In Part III, the author constructs a three-prong framework (the “Blight Framework”), an interconnected marriage of terminology, false narratives, and governmental decision-making. The Blight Framework is developed to provide a better understanding of the problem and the parties involved in the takings. Part IV contextualizes these takings using a recent example in St. Louis Place. In 2009, owners of homes, churches, and businesses in St. Louis Place, a neighborhood in St. Louis, Missouri, found their properties subject to blight condemnation and eminent domain. In St. Louis Place, a variety of parties, including developers and local governmental parties, used blight condemnation as a means to generate revitalization and economic development to revitalize this distressed community. After a contentious six-year battle between developers, the municipality, its agents and the community, the dispute resulted in a land acquisition by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (“NGA”). Ultimately, the NGA acquired the property in St. Louis Place through a combination of voluntary settlements or eminent domain civil court actions. Despite their efforts to remain in St. Louis Place, neither legislation nor public outcry could protect property owners from takings due to a blight condemnation and eminent domain actions — not federal or state constitutions, not federal or state courts, nor state and local regulations. Not even the court of public opinion could stop governmental bodies from using blight condemnation and eminent domain action to take St. Louis Place. Part IV contextualizes these takings using a recent example in St. Louis Place. In 2009, owners of homes, churches, and businesses in St. Louis Place, a neighborhood in St. Louis, Missouri, found their properties subject to blight condemnation and eminent domain. In St. Louis Place, a variety of parties, including developers and local governmental parties, used blight condemnation as a means to generate revitalization and economic development to revitalize this distressed community. After a contentious six-year battle between developers, the municipality, its agents and the community, the dispute resulted in a land acquisition by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (“NGA”). Ultimately, the NGA acquired theproperty in St. Louis Place through a combination of voluntary settlements or eminent domain civil court actions. Despite their efforts to remain in St. Louis Place, neither legislation nor public outcry could protect property owners from takings due to a blight condemnation and eminent domain actions — not federal or state constitutions, not federal or state courts, nor state and local regulations. Not even the court of public opinion could stop governmental bodies from using blight condemnation and eminent domain action to take St. Louis Place. Part V proposes legislative and community based solutions to address the flawed takings Blight Framework. Part VI provides some final observations and a charge for more open and inclusive conversations about revitalization of underprivileged communities