Yawkey Way and Lansdowne Street were declared “blighted” by the city of Boston, clearing the way for the Boston Red Sox organization to use the streets.
The dreary and stunningly mediocre Charles River Park apartment complex is all that remains of a big chunk of the old West End, torn down via eminent domain by Boston officials back in the 1950s.
And before John Henry rode into town to save the day, the Red Sox were working with Boston officials on a scheme to seize several acres of the Fenway neighborhood, as the team at one point wanted level several buildings to make way for a giant new stadium.
We’ve seen some pretty serious abuses of eminent domain over the years by government officials in Boston and across the Bay State. So it’s all the more surprising that Massachusetts still trails other states in passing legislation that would at least put some checks on what the U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision made long ago in 1795, dubbed a necessary but “despotic power” that should be used only for truly urgent public
purposes.
“If the purpose of government is to protect its citizens, you have to protect landowners and homeowners from what I consider spurious uses of eminent domain,” contends Paul DeBole, a political science professor at Lasell College who is working to raise awareness of the issue.
In fact, Massachusetts is truly an outlier when it comes to curbing eminent domain, with dozens of other states having already passed checks of one sort or another, DeBole says.
The catalyst was the Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo decision, in which it gave its blessing to local governments to seize homes, land and other property in the name of economic development.
City officials in the New London case took over and leveled an entire neighborhood of modest homes to make way for an “urban village” that never happened, leaving a barren, empty lot by the Thames River.
The decision triggered a wave of legislation by state lawmakers across the country eager to prevent a Kelo-style mess in their backyards, putting into place limits on eminent domain power across the country, according to the libertarian public-service law firm, Institute for Justice.
Florida got an “A” in the Institute for Justice’s annual eminent domain report. The Sunshine State, which had been one of the nation’s worst eminent domain abusers, put a 10-year waiting period on the transfer of land taken by eminent domain, effectively preventing the draconian legal powers from being used by a private developer. Second, state and local governments can no longer cite “blight” in order to take property. Finally, Florida enshrined these protections in its constitution, making them extremely hard to repeal.
Scott Van Voorhis
Arizona, which got a “B+,” now requires a property-by-property review when homes and buildings are to be taken as part of a plan to redevelop a supposedly run-down slum area.
By contrast, Massachusetts is prominent among the handful of states which have taken no action since then, earning an “F” from the Institute for Justice.
The report chides Bay State lawmakers for filing “relatively ineffectual legislation” that has gone nowhere.
“Eminent domain abuse continues throughout the state, and although home rule allows local municipalities to pass their own eminent domain protections, the legislature must pass eminent domain reform to ensure uniform protection for home and business owners,” the report notes.
Local officials in Massachusetts certainly could use a few checks on their eminent domain powers.
Boston officials have long stretched the definition of “blight” to include some of the city’s most dynamic neighborhoods – such as the Seaport and the Fenway – in order to legally justify taking land for various development projects.
Back in 2000 when the John Harrington Red Sox wanted to take over a chunk of the Fenway for the team’ hare-brained new stadium plan, city officials obliged by declaring the area blighted. The fact that it was packed with local businesses, from bars and restaurants to retail shops, was apparently of no consequence.
Under Henry, the Sox have been able to enlist the city’s help to take over the streets surrounding the ballpark, such as Yawkey Way and Lansdowne Street, as they’ve again been declared blighted. It wasn’t blighted then and it certainly isn’t today, with a bevy of luxury towers surrounding the ballpark – including the new Pierce, where a penthouse was on the market this spring for $4.7 million (more than $2,000 a square foot).
While Boston has taken most of the heat over the years for its at-times questionable use of eminent domain powers, suburbs have been busy seizing private property for all sorts of uses.
Homeowners in sleepy Carver, located in the heart of cranberry country, have been battling a plan by the town to take their homes as part of a giant, industrial/commercial redevelopment scheme of a nearby, defunct gravel pit.
In Swampscott, town officials have been pursuing plans to use eminent domain to take land for a rail trail.
There’s sometimes a need to use eminent domain, such as for vital public infrastructure, such as a new bridge, DeBole argues.
But he questions where rail trails and private development ventures truly fit that definition.
“It seems to me we have this awesome, unlimited power,” DeBole says. “It seems to me we should be having a discussion to limit that power.”
Even as other states lower the boom on the indiscriminate use of eminent domain, Massachusetts continues on its merry way, all but giving a green light to local officials and developers to concoct all sorts of nebulous and wrong-headed property-stealing schemes.
Given the insane numbers buyers must pay for a roof and four walls in Massachusetts, no homeowner should face a hostile takeover by an unscrupulous developer and his cronies on the local board of selectmen intent on clearing the way for a new warehouse or strip mall.
Seems like an issue ripe for action – if only Beacon Hill would get off its duff and do something.
