It's too early to say what it means

But it's a great step forward that DC Government did an independent market study-evaluation of Poplar Point and determined that an exclusive deal around the creation of a Soccer Stadium (sorry DC United fans) didn't make economic sense for the city. See "D.C.'s game plan for Poplar Point could take soccer off the field," from the Washington Business Journal.

2. But maybe that's just because the involved developer for that location just wasn't as well connected as other developers (i.e., Eastbanc and the recent overnight sale of a fire station, library, and police office in the West End area of DC between Georgetown, Foggy Bottom, and Dupont Circle--a very hot area with limited land inventory)--allowing the city to take a more objective view.

The trick here is that in the first case, DC did an independent economic study. Not in the second case.

This is something I have written about before. This is from a blog entry on the Florida Market (slightly edited):

I am not necessarily against the exercise of eminent domain authority, or even city-provided funding and incentives. However, I do think that the exercise or provision of such should always be performed with great care, and not to the benefit of particularly well connected people at the expense of the less well connected.

I find it appalling that the equivalent of private bills favoring a particular group can be entered as proposed legislation before City Council without requiring (1) a publicly tendered request for proposals that is open and transparent, with stated criteria for evaluation; (2) independent analysis of alternatives; (3) independent economic analysis of the claims made within such a bill.

There is something seriously wrong with how the DC Government conducts business given the frequency of how often this occurs. The lack of sophistication goes far beyond ANCs, although at the higher levels, I believe the failure to create regularized and transparent processes and procedures is deliberate--it allows for the creation of a habitat (a/k/a "cesspool") where it is far easier to make deals and satisfy special interests.

In my testimony I quote from a Boston Globe op-ed, "Make Eminent Domain Fair for All," about ways to provide open evaluation of eminent domain proposals. The provisions offerred are extendable to the evaluation of proposed private-public partnerships such as that laid out in the New Towns proposal. The authors suggest:

-- Requiring, as Justice Anthony M. Kennedy suggested in his Kelo concurrence, that any exercise of eminent domain for economic development have a primarily public purpose rather than a merely incidental one.
-- Requiring the government to demonstrate the public benefit through a full-scale financial analysis that could be challenged in court.
-- Requiring that eminent domain not be used for a solely fiscal purpose and that it instead must be part of a comprehensive land use plan.
-- Requiring that the affected neighborhood have adequate participation in the planning process, a right that would be backed up by state-provided technical assistance upon the neighborhood's request.

Such procedures and processes should be required for all matters when the DC Government sells properties or provides financial support and other incentives.