First of all, what is justification for putting property into a project area? The reading of a project plan such as the one proposed for the City of Artesia is revealing. Consider some stated definitions for creation of the project area: “… inadequate size given present standards and market conditions, … adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with each other … subdivided lots of irregular form and shape … multiple ownership ... abnormally low lease rates … excessive vacant lots … lack of facilities that are normally found in neighborhoods, including grocery stores, drug stores and banks …”. As you see, the reasons are varied, arbitrary and caspricious. The normal everyday course of business will cause these conditions and over time they are self-correcting. Imagine trying to sell your business or your home when these definitions must be given to each prospective buyer.
But there is something more subtle going on with these trumped-up justifications; it is the cloud that Redevelopment puts over your property. It is the additional layer of government control the owner is subject to, because in a project area the owners not only have to meet normal design and building codes, but any other requirements the Redevelopment Agency may choose to impose. A like analogy is buying a home in a historical preservation district where any painting, landscaping, or building modification plans must be submitted to the district board for approval. But in Redevelopment there is no appeal process; only the use of eminent domain to silence an uncooperative land owner.
Eminent domain is the ultimate club of government. It forces the sale of private property from the owner to another private party without recourse. Redevelopment is not about blight, it is about money. It is about government control of property, the taking from someone poorer and giving to someone richer. Redevelopment is the only governmental process that is exempt from appeal. So much for private property rights under the Constitution.
This is the real evil in Redevelopment. It subverts the principle of private property. What is all this fuss about private property rights; isn’t the good of the whole more important than the rights of the few? Shouldn’t you be forced to sell your home because a new owner with government assistance could make your home fancier and thus enhance the neighborhood—for the good of the whole? The answer should be no. There are a few legitimate reasons for taking of property, such as for roads, fire stations, schools. In these cases the ownership stays with the governmental organization and the land comes off the tax rolls and there is no profit involved.
Redevelopment fails this test. Here the profit motive is paramount. Government is using the gun of eminent domain to steal from one and give to another. This is when freedom goes out the door and we all ultimately lose. When we can recognize the corrupting effect that a city government can have on our property rights we will begin to turn back the silent government of Redevelopment. There is no future for a nation, much less a city, that does not respect private property. Property rights are where freedom starts.