Can anyone seriously suggest that elected officials should make this sort of decision?

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Legislators aim to put limits on uses of eminent domain.

Eminent domain is supposed to be used for public works projects that benefit entire communities, like highways, airports or bridges, he said. Others, though, say it should be available more broadly...Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy has said that eminent domain is an important tool. The city used the threat of eminent domain to persuade Pittsburgh Wool Co. to make way for an expansion of H.J. Heinz Co. facilities, which were later purchased by Del Monte Food Co.

"Persuade?" And deciding that H.J. Heinz trumps Pittsburgh Wool? Is that what Mayors are supposed to do? Not in my world. If H.J.Heinz wants to expand, he'll just have to pretend to be a capitalist and take part in the market system.

Comments

[Roger]

I share your concern about Eminent Domain. It's a slippery slope, and I'm also a bit surprised that the giant "blight" loophole is left in there. What's blight? Is an empty lot with some brush on it "blighted" when same lot would be handy for Vulcan Ventures to stage construction materials on? Is a 1950 1000 sq. ft. rambler blight in a neighborhood of McMansions?

I used to live near New London (years ago) and that whole seizure made me ill. The ultimate irony is that many of these new developments will be "blight" in a short period of time...everything goes in cycles. Bah.

[Jarrett]

As Kunstler argued a decade ago in Home from Nowhere, the real solution -- and an entirely ethical one -- is for property taxes to be based on land value (read: location) rather than the value of buildings on them. That would help motivate the owners of those crucial parcels that stand in the way of a redevelopment.

Redevelopment can be a good thing, and in many ways, it's the only alternative to sprawl. I agree that eminent domain is a clumsy way to do it, but I'm not sure I'd abandon it until we have a cleaner way, such as the one Kunstler suggets.

[David Sucher]

But don't you see, Jarrett, -- eminent domain is simply not needed -- except by projects which can't float on their own bottom

[JRoth]

Jarrett-

Pittsburgh has land- and building-based property taxes. It's a good idea, but it hasn't helped this rust belt city in the least, and it certainly made no difference to Pittsburgh Wool.

You're exactly right, David. The free market should determine what happens between Heinz and Pittsburgh Wool. Pittsburgh Wool should still be in their historic building on the north side of the Allegheny River instead of a historic building on the south side of the Allegheny River, and Heinz should be in a nice greenfield somewhere, leaving behind another 100 acres of brownfield in a saturated market. What a perfect free market solution for all concerned.

[David Sucher]

JRoth,
You are assuming an awful lot of facts which are either debatable or unknown to me.
So I have no idea how to respond to your statements.

[JRoth]

David - I'm assuming nothing. This case was settled 5 years ago. After I take you out to dinner, we can swing by Pittsburgh Wool's new location, the expanded Heinz plant, and then the greenfields that have been built up in the past 15 years even as Pittsburgh (and the region) have lost jobs and population. The only debatable item in my description is whether or not Heinz was bluffing. Since it's the only factory of any size left in a city that used to be dominated by them - and since most of those others have been replaced by greenfield plants - it's not a huge assumption that their next move was out of town.

The owners of Pittsburgh Wool were refusing offers 2 and 3 times the market value of their property. Why? Partly sheer cussedness, from what I've heard, but also because they owned a monopoly - the only piece of land on which Heinz could expand (hemmed in on the other 3 sides by a bridge, an expressway+railroad, and a road+railroad+river). They had no incentive to sell - except money, which they were refusing. And the free market solution, once they refused Heinz' best offer, would have been for Heinz to go elsewhere. A perfect compromise - everyone loses.

[Brian Miller]

JRoth: I would add to your example the (relatively) old line families who built a 1950s strip mall 50 years ago, have invested nothing in the property ever since, and have no incentive to do anything because they are elderly, happy with the pittance in rent they are getting (storage of files for the school district, on the city's main commercial street!), and the city is meanwhile NEEDING to prime the pump for new development in the heart of the city. And no, our Redevelopment Agency doesn't even have eminent domain authority here, but sometimes this can prime the pump/provide an incentive and provide tax and legal benefits to encourage these old-line families to sell out. But no, we'll just give them grants to paint their crappy little building.

[David Sucher]

Brian,
You have the nail on the head: I do not believe that govt agencies -- and hey! I worked in one for years -- have the expertise to "prime the pump."

[Brian Miller]

That's where we might agree to disagree, David :)