Susette Kelo has lost the battle. And her home.
While there will be an outpouring of support for private property rights as the first anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Kelo v. New London decision passes by, it will not help Ms. Kelo. The city council in New London, Ct., recently voted to evict her from her property.
This is the last step in the process to make way for a new master-planned community designed to boost tourism, commerce and tax revenue for the City of New London. It could feature amenities such as high-end condominiums, upscale restaurants and stylish retail outlets.
It is not likely to feature Ms. Kelo, however. It is doubtful that she’ll receive enough compensation for her home to afford one of the new residences – perhaps even occupying her old lot – in these fashionable environs.
Here in Texas, the same is probably true for many residents and small business owners in downtown El Paso.
The City of El Paso recently unveiled its redevelopment plan for downtown. With its stated goal “to become a leading American city,” this is the Texas version of similar plans across the country, including the one in New London.
It portrays a vibrant, renewed downtown El Paso as “the destination for new residential housing, shopping, night-life, families and visitors [and] a culturally important place with an area dedicated specifically for U.S./Mexico art.”
In order to make room for the “new” El Paso, the plan calls for the demolition of many buildings within a 127.5 acre tract. The problem is that most of the El Pasoans who live, work and own property in the area were not asked if they thought this was a good idea.
The plan relies heavily on amassing an inventory of tracts of various sizes that can be used to attract developers and retailers to the area. The proponents of the plan need the land, whether or not the current owners and residents are interested in selling.
In a free market, this wouldn’t be a problem. Either the buyers and sellers would negotiate a price that satisfies everyone, or the developers would devise plans to work around the properties of those owners who didn’t want to sell.
But in the case of this plan, just like New London’s, the city of El Paso will be able to exercise the right of eminent domain to seize the property of those who do not wish to sell and relocate.
These might include the owner and residents of the Pablo Bay apartments, where the first novel of the Mexican Revolution was published in 1915. Or the owners of Starr Western Wear and the Juarez Boot store. Or apartment residents in the historic Segundo Barrio.
These buildings are all in the demolition zone, even though they currently provide affordable housing and space for thriving businesses. It is just that they are not exactly the type of housing or businesses that the city and the Paso del Norte Group – the plan’s private sector backer – are looking for.
In response to the Kelo decision, various committees of the Texas Legislature are studying how to restore the private property rights of Texans stripped out of the U.S. Constitution by the Supreme Court.
While there are many abuses of eminent domain to be addressed, there would be no better place for Texas policymakers to start than by eliminating the practice at the core of urban redevelopment plans like those in New London and El Paso. It is simply wrong to take private property from one person and give it to another who is politically connected, on the promise they will generate increased tax revenues to fill the cities’ coffers.
By stopping this practice, the property rights movement Ms. Kelo awakened during her courageous fight could still prove victorious for men and women in downtown El Paso and across Texas.
Bill Peacock is the director for the Center for Economic Freedom with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, an Austin-based research institute.