As Michael pointed out, Durham is going to seize private property for economic development, although their claim will be that the property is being taken to address blight, not to promote economic development. This despite the fact that it appears the idea of redeveloping the area occurred first, and only then did they conduct a survey to call the area blighted.
Blight is being used as a pretext for economic development takings, which it almost always is–a city doesn’t care about designating an area as being blighted unless they want to redevelop it. Durham never would have done a survey of the area if they didn’t first have the desire to develop the area and give the properties to private developers.
If you want to read more about the important interrelationship between blight and economic development takings, please check out this report.
Another issue is whether property owners are being misled into believing that just because their property may be in a “blighted area,” their property may be seized by eminent domain.
In 2006, the legislature changed the state’s urban redevelopment law to address a key problem: properties could be in pristine condition yet still could be seized if they were in a “blighted area.” I wrote a lot about the problems with the statute.
Under S.L. 2006-224, only blighted parcels can be seized, not parcels that are in fine condition but happen to be located in “blighted areas.”
There are many properties in the area that aren’t blighted, according to the N & O article that Michael mentions.
For the properties that are “blighted,” this designation may misleading as well. However, current law makes it tough to challenge these “blight” findings.
Guess what happens when a court reviews whether property is really blighted? They defer to the government–unless property is clearly not blighted, the government can generally just make the claim and usually will win. The government can seize private property for questionable reasons and they have no burden of proof, in fact, for all practical purposes, the property owner has an overwhelming burden to show that property is being improperly seized.
This is why I have constantly recommended that the government have the burden of proof in eminent domain cases.
