The eminent domain issue comes to a head Tuesday when City Council is to consider an ordinance that would define blight in such a way as to limit the city's ability to take private property for the Downtown Plan. [agenda]
Essentially, the proposed ordinance is meant to ensure that only property considered blighted by meeting at least three of seven criteria can be taken through eminent domain, as opposed to the current rules, which could allow a building within an overall area that is considered blighted to be taken. The ordinance also would incorporate a definition of "public use," the standard generally used to determine if eminent domain can be applied.
One of the arguments over the potential use of eminent domain in the Downtown Plan is using the government's power to take property from one owner and giving it to developers. The proposed ordinance, introduced by Northeast city Rep. Melina Castro and approved for introduction on an unusually tight 4-3 vote -- a sign of how significant the proposal is, because ordinances typically are introduced without discussion, then debated and voted upon at a later meeting -- would more tightly define public use and blight.
Generally, eminent domain is when the government takes private property for a public use, typically used for such projects as roads or hospitals but since the 1950s expanded for more controversial uses such as redevelopment of neighborhoods. In Texas, eminent domain cannot be used for economic development, but does call eliminating blight a valid public use, and property can be transferred from a private owner to another private owner, as long as eliminating blight is the reason, and economic development is a secondary outcome.
The proposal introduced by Castro tracks state laws that failed over the summer, one at the last minute in the legislature and the other which was approved by lawmakers but vetoed by the governor after an amendment many considered a "poison pill" was tacked on.
Mayor John Cook told the El Paso Times that he supported HB 2006, the bill that was vetoed by Gov. Rick Perry for the most part, but wrote a letter urging its rejection after an amendment was added that would compensate property owners next to a roadway for the loss of access to that roadway.
Castro's effort supports the Land Grab Opponents, a group that opposes the potential use of eminent domain in the Downtown Plan and proposed a similar ordinance in fall 2006 and in spring 2007, when the El Paso Times editorialized in favor of an ordinance more carefully defining blight.
The group, through its lawyer, Stuart Blaugrund, was active in lobbying the legislature for the two bills -- HB 2006 and 3057 -- last summer. That fact was cited by city Reps. Susie Byrd and Steve Ortega during heated discussions in 2006 and 2007, and again by Byrd last week, although Blaugrund was not mentioned by name.
The seven criteria outlined in the proposed ordinance are:
-- The property contains unsafe, uninhabitable, or abandoned structures
-- The property does not have adequate sanitation
-- The property contains an "imminent harm" to life or property
-- The property has been identified by EPA as a "superfund" site
-- The property is the site of repeated illegal activity
-- The property is an economic liability to its neighbors
-- The property is abandoned and contains a structure not fit for use
