Eminent domain: the real issue is considered vs. ill-considered development

Magnet Bar, Baltimore. Baltimore City Paper photo.

One of my knocks on Baltimore is that it has very much of an anti-asset urban renewal approach to urban "revitalization," even though it is true that they do a lot of asset-based revitalization, especially around historic preservation, cultural heritage and the arts.

Another problem is that the Baltimore Development Corporation, a quasi-governmental development authority is very secretive and doesn't have to disclose much of its proceedings, although this is changing.

Today, the Baltimore Sun reports, in "City bid to seize bar is blocked," that the BDC's desire to seize a number of properties in the Station North arts district, an area that granted, needs help, was rejected by the Courts, in part because BDC had no specific plan for revitalization. From the article:

By rejecting Baltimore's plan to seize a bar for its Charles North redevelopment effort, a Circuit Court judge has complicated that urban renewal plan and called into question the city's economic development tactics.

Judge John Philip Miller, in an opinion released yesterday, ruled that city economic development officials failed to show "sufficient grounds" to warrant taking the bar through eminent domain. Land-use officials say this could be the first time the court has blocked the city from a "quick take" seizure. ...

M.J. "Jay" Brodie, president of the Baltimore Development Corp., the city's development arm, declined to discuss the specifics of the ruling but said yesterday that Baltimore's use of the "quick take" process for Charles North is no different than the hundreds of other instances the city has used eminent domain. "This is not unique in any way. This is the way the city's done things for the last 40 years," Brodie said. "It's called urban renewal."

However, in his ruling, Miller questioned the city's procedure of moving to seize the bar before having a specific plan for the site. Typically, the BDC leaves it up to developers vying for the seized property to decide whether they want to build homes, shops, offices or something else. Citing last year's Supreme Court ruling that affirmed government's right to seize private property for economic development, Miller wrote that Kelo v. New London showed that to take property for economic development, a city must show "a carefully considered development plan."

While I don't think this is the best kind of authenticity to develop as a part of a revitalization strategy, the Baltimore City Paper ranked The Magnet as Baltimore's Best Dive Bar. (For another take on the bar, check out Jason Dove's blog entry.)



Index Keywords: eminent-domain; urban-design-placemaking