Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Eminent domain's community champion, Kathleen Walsh, gets good ink on good move from state house. Next we'll see what the PA senate does

This seems to be a great next step. I hate eminent domain. It is used poorly locally. So, we should NOT use it at all.
Eminent domain passes - PittsburghLIVE.com: "HARRISBURG -- The state House voted Tuesday night to curb local governments' power to take private property and give it to another private owner, a controversial practice that has been used several times in Pittsburgh and was deemed legal by the U.S. Supreme Court in June.

'That's one of the big problems, that developers are simply using the government to take private property for their own use,' said Kathleen Walsh, 62, of Ridgemont in Pittsburgh's West End.

Five years ago, the Pittsburgh Urban Redevelopment Authority considered labeling part of her verdant hillside neighborhood 'blighted,' the first step in condemning the homes and making way for a Home Depot adjacent to the Parkway Center Mall, Walsh said."

One of the ironic twists to this story is how they wanted to use eminent domain to expand the Parkway Center Mall. Now the Parkway Center Mall has plenty of spaces as it is nearly empty. Not much is there.

Furthermore, the ones who crave eminent domain might point to the long term slow down at the Parkway Center Mall as a reason why eminent domain was needed. Ha, ha, ha. They'll say, "If only we put a Home Depot in the Parkway Center Mall, then we'd have thriving businesses."

Meanwhile, the traffic jams on the Parkway West (if that is what it can be called now) happen after you depart the city, not in the city. The traffic and the shoppers and the residents and the businesses and the churches and the recreation and the better quality of life has sprawled to make jams elsewhere -- because they leave the city with a great exodus daily.

Thankfully we still have some havens and stronger neighborhoods such as Ridgemont.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Eminent domain limits pass House


Tools
Print this article
E-mail this article
Subscribe to this paper
Larger text Larger / Smaller Text

Subscribe
By Mike Wereschagin
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, November 2, 2005

HARRISBURG -- The state House voted Tuesday night to curb local governments' power to take private property and give it to another private owner, a controversial practice that has been used several times in Pittsburgh and was deemed legal by the U.S. Supreme Court in June.

"That's one of the big problems, that developers are simply using the government to take private property for their own use," said Kathleen Walsh, 62, of Ridgemont in Pittsburgh's West End.

Five years ago, the Pittsburgh Urban Redevelopment Authority considered labeling part of her verdant hillside neighborhood "blighted," the first step in condemning the homes and making way for a Home Depot adjacent to the Parkway Center Mall, Walsh said.


"This is a neighborhood of nice, middle-class, well-maintained homes," Walsh said. "We have a couple of people here who have been living here since the 1950s. It was just unbelievably terrible for some of the older people."

If the Senate passes the bill, the URA wouldn't be allowed to start the process that haunted Walsh and her neighbors for nearly a year, said Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Cranberry, a co-sponsor of the bill.

The bill provides for a few exceptions, such as if the property is abandoned or unsafe, or if the owner consents to having the land condemned. Property can be taken for use by a nonprofit hospital or medical center.

"It will help to stop a lot of the abuses that's occurred around the state," including Mayor Tom Murphy's threats to use eminent domain to oust Downtown businesses to make way for a major developer in the Fifth and Forbes corridor, Metcalfe said.

The public opposition that helped derail Murphy's revitalization plan also caused the URA to back away from its plan to condemn Walsh's neighborhood, she said.

Twelve states have considered laws limiting local eminent domain authority since the Supreme Court, in Kelo v. New London (Conn.), declared it constitutional for local governments to take property from one private owner and give it to another if it would result in increased tax money for a community.

"We need to restore private property rights," Metcalfe said. "I think Kelo v. New London was a wake-up call to the states."

Mike Wereschagin can be reached at mwereschagin@tribweb.com or (412) 391-0927.