| Many observers, on both the left and the right — especially the right — are upset by the Supreme Court’s Kelo v. New London decision. They believe that government now has a free hand to take your home and build a Wal-Mart, a baseball stadium, housing for rich people, or another Mall of America. This may be true in extreme cases; the reality is usually much more subtle.
As the page 1 story by Philip Langdon shows, occasionally eminent domain is used as a tool in new urban projects. When that happens, it is not the new urbanist designers or developers who make the decision — it is local elected officials. Because of the risk of political backlash, these officials generally are not eager to use eminent domain — but in some cases it is the only way to clear land for redevelopment. It is a fact of urban revitalization that land ownership is frequently a tangled mess.
Unlike greenfield projects, where usually one or two owners are involved, redevelopment can involve scores or even hundreds of separately owned parcels. Many of the parcels may have absentee ownership or titles in dispute. Sometimes parcels that are locked up in legal entanglements harbor illegal activities like prostitution or drug distribution. Occasionally, legal businesses cause blight — like the store in Greensboro, North Carolina, that sold fortified beer and wine — and the owner refuses to sell for redevelopment.
New urbanists could steer clear of association with eminent domain by designing only new towns on greenfield sites in the suburbs. New urbanists have been wrongly accused of doing just that. They actually spend at least half of their time designing and developing infill, brownfield, and grayfield projects, reusing and revitalizing land that has been previously developed. That’s a worthy and challenging calling, and I don’t think anyone would have it any other way.
As for eminent domain, it is legal and it has its place. Local officials should use it sparingly and with the utmost care. The developments that result from such a process should be as high quality as possible. That’s where new urbanists come in. The movement includes, after all, some of the best planners on the planet. Questioned on the use of eminent domain, zoning codes, and other regulatory tools, Andres Duany recently replied: “We will not give up on any tool that works, and that is the pragmatism of the New Urbanism.”
ANY MEANS AVAILABLE?
Steven Greenhut, an editorial writer at the Orange County Register, is outraged that eminent domain was used to develop a partly new urban project in Brea, California. In one recent column he compared new urbanists to Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot. He accused new urbanists of not caring about freedom and being willing to use “any means available — including eminent domain and government regulation — to achieve the desired result of more new urbanist communities.”
Yo, Steven: Pol Pot used “any means available.” Government regulation — also known as “laws” — and eminent domain are not the same thing as murder or dictatorship. Greenhut lives in what is commonly called suburban sprawl, and he likes it. That’s fine, but his neighborhood is not free of regulation. Every subdivision, including those in Houston, the city without zoning, has to submit to regulations and approvals, which involve a degree of coercion. Greenhut and other so-called libertarians such as Randal O’Toole never seem to be outraged by the coercion of zoning that mandates low-density sprawl.
Eminent domain is not an idea that originated with new urbanists — “takings” are provided for in the Constitution — nor is it a tool that is closely tied to the implementation of most new urban projects. In the relatively rare cases where eminent domain is necessary and justified, new urbanists are at least able to produce more humane designs than an earlier generation of planners was capable of creating.
Let’s also acknowledge that all land-use regulations involve a degree of coercion. Given the current system that long has mandated conventional suburban development, on balance New Urbanism offers greater choice and freedom for Americans.
This article is available in the September issue of New Urban News, along with many more articles not available online. Subscribe or order the individual issue. |