According to this Virginian-Pilot article, the Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority (NRHA) could be. SB781, patroned by Ken Cuccinelli (R-37th), would prohibit the taking of property for anything other than public use. Where the heartburn of NRHA lies is in the definition of “public use.” According to the article:
It would strictly define public use as a road, school or other public facility. It also would forbid housing authorities from taking non-blighted homes in redevelopment areas.
As the article points out, projects such as East Beach and what is planned for Wards Corner include non-blighted homes.
OK – maybe I’m missing something here. Eminent domain allows NRHA to “take” property provided compensation is paid. So couldn’t NRHA just buy these homes, anyway? The only thing I see is that they couldn’t force people to sell. Is that such a bad thing?
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Nope, not a bad thing at all.
It’s especially not a bad thing for that last property owner who knows that the local government has already bought all the surrounding properties to go forward with the project. In fact, it’s a pretty good thing for him, because he gets to dictate his own price to the local government, basically extorting his fellow taxpayer-neighbors. Oh, but it is a bad thing for them, since they may now either lose the project altogether or have to pay through the nose, potentially well above market price,* for the property to satisfy the greedy holdout.
Yes, some local governments somewhere use the threat of condemning the property, rather than buying it, to squeeze out homeowners. But condemnation is a fairly necessary counterbalance to the power of the holdout property owner.
* Of course, the fair market value for the holdout property probably has actually risen, because demand for that lot is probably inflated by the local government’s interest in acquiring it to complete the project. But I’m referring to the market price status quo ante.
Cory, how is that any different than a residential real estate developer who wants to buy up five farms to make a subdivision of 500 ticky tacky houses? Last farm hold out makes it too expensive? Too bad.
We’re not talking about actual public necessities here (i.e., roads, schools, and public facilities), we’re talking about economic redevelopment. One of the grand things about this country? You can live in the raggedy ass broke down trailer you own, and no one can (or should) be able to say anything about it.
The difference, naturally, is that the developer can use a different shell corporation to buy each farm so that the 5th farmer doesn’t know what’s going on. I don’t think local governments get to do that.
Oh, and that part about the taxpayers being on the hook for the holdout owner’s price, rather than the development investors or shareholders.
And, though I have never practiced land use law, I’m reliably informed that no, you can’t live in a raggedy ass broke down trailer you own without having someone say something about it. There are still zoning and code requirements, and quite frequently there are servitudes, restrictive covenants (obviously not the racially restrictive ones, but there are more), or association agreements. Of course, if one lives out in the middle of nowhere, one’s rusted out double-wide might be perfectly fine. But otherwise, it’s likely to get condemned as a blighted property anyway.
I guess I’m just not all that keen to give government the power to force redevelopment of a property.
And as to raggedy ass broke down trailers, if the owner is paid up in taxes and the structure doesn’t pose a safety threat (pretty much taken care of by zoning and code requirements), he is (and ought to be) pretty much let alone by the government (which has nothing to do with servitudes, restrictive covenants, or association agreements.)
You guys have missed the point again. In Virginia, these eminent domain bills are “slum lord protection bills.”
Not a chance. Norfolk, Alexandria, and Virginia Beach have all used eminent domain for unscrupulous purposes. These bills are about protecting home ownership from government abuse.
The holdout problem is a straw man argument. There are many workarounds, including making a simulateous offer to all affected landowners.
Eminent domain is an incredibly powerful and abusive power that should only be used for clearly public purposes, and only as a last resort. That is the point.
But, MB, you said, “You can live in the raggedy ass broke down trailer you own, and no one can (or should) be able to say anything about it.” You didn’t say, “You can live in the raggedy ass broke down trailer you own, and no local government can (or should) be able to say anything about it.” That’s why I included the point about the servitudes, covenants, and agreements.
I assumed the context of the conversation (gov’t action). Sloppiness on my part.