Legislation prohibiting municipalities from taking land for private development has passed the House and is awaiting a vote in the Senate.
If enacted, the bill would limit the eminent domain power of cities and towns to taking land for public use only. Under the measure, properties could still be seized to build roads, parks, municipal buildings or other uses that serve the community, but would prohibit private property from being taken and sold or transferred to a private developer.
Opponents say the legislation, sponsored by State Rep. Martha M. Walz, would limit the ability of cities and towns to redevelop blighted areas and turn underused sites into mixed-use developments with much needed workforce housing.
“The legislation would undermine important economic development and affordable housing initiatives,” said Geoffrey Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, a nonpartisan association that advocates for cities and towns. “It’s counter productive, and it’s not good for Massachusetts.”
Walz did not respond to a request for comment. David Falcone, a spokesman for Senate President Therese Murray, said he was unaware of the legislation. A spokesman for Gov. Deval Patrick said the governor has not decided whether he will sign it if the bill reaches his desk.
Abuse Ala West End
State Rep. Denise Provost, a Somerville Democrat and a co-sponsor, said the law is overdue to curb abuses by Bay State communities.
“The West End is just one of the most famous examples where there has been an abuse of the eminent domain power in Massachusetts,” said Provost of the Boston neighborhood that was bulldozed in the 1950s to make way for luxury high-rise apartment buildings.
Provost said she supports the measure because of the city of Somerville’s recent taking of Central Steel Supply in Assembly Square to make way for a mixed-use commercial development.
“For the city to take a successful and longstanding local small business which does not fit any definition of blight is a stretch,” she said.
But Beckwith insists that eminent domain powers are used sparingly and contain sufficient safeguards.
“There is a long public process that’s involved, and an owner of any property that is taken gets fair compensation,” he said.
Dozens of legislatures nationwide have filed bills to protect property rights in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Kelo vs. City of New London case. In a 5-4 decision in 2005, the court upheld a ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court that the city could take non-blighted private property by eminent domain and then sell that property to a private developer for “economic development.”
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote: “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”
