It may take Hercules to stop a Wal-Mart, but it is much less heroic when the showdown involves eminent domain abuse. In an unusual twist on the usual David vs. Goliath eminent domain battle, the City of Hercules, Calif., proved in May 2006 that not even the nation’s big-box store giant could successfully fend off the government’s use of eminent domain to take its property and hand it over to another private developer. According to Hercules Community Development Director Steve Lawton, the unanimous vote to condemn 17 acres owned by Wal-Mart was an effort “to ward off urban blight.” Apparently, Wal-Mart’s characteristic promise of taxes and jobs, created in this case through private negotiation and not government force, was not an acceptable option.
|
“This resolution means that government agencies can use the really awesome power of eminent domain merely because they don’t like the property owner’s land use application or the property owner,” said Wal-Mart spokesman Kevin Lostcoff. “It would mean there’s virtually no limit on government’s ability to take private property through eminent domain.” |
|
“This resolution means that government agencies can use the really awesome power of eminent domain merely because they don’t like the property owner’s land use application or the property owner,” said Wal-Mart spokesman Kevin Lostcoff. “It would mean there’s virtually no limit on government’s ability to take private property through eminent domain.”
Wal-Mart further said it would challenge the condemnation through the courts, emphasizing the City’s use of force simply to preference one developer over another.
The land in question is the site of a former dynamite factory that officials seek to transform into a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood with small shops. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., which purchased the property and proceeded to submit three development proposals of its own to City Hall, hoped to build a 100,000 square-food store, a pedestrian plaza, and two outdoor eating areas. The company said it would present a “villagelike” atmosphere.
But sadly, the City did exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court signed off on when it decided Kelo v. City of New London in June 2005. Hercules officials decided to simply take the property by eminent domain, justifying it on the grounds that the government can take people’s homes, businesses, places of worship or farms if somebody else wants to do something with the land that’s more preferable—or more profitable, as was the case in Kelo. While the pretext for the taking is the elimination of so-called “blight,” the City is choosing its preferred developer over Wal-Mart, despite the fact that Wal-Mart already owns the property.
This situation emphasizes that literally nobody is safe from the government’s wrecking ball. Wal-Mart is finding it difficult to protect its own property, even with the ability to unleash its seemingly endless army of lawyers on the task. But small business owners and everyday homeowners—paradoxically the same people who are often threatened by big-box stores like Wal-Mart—do not have the resources necessary to fight costly legal battles of uncertain outcome.
Wal-Mart, despite the fact that it has previously benefited from the use of eminent domain in other situations, has the fundamental right to keep land that it already rightfully owns. And, if economic development really is Hercules’ goal, the City would probably not condemn the world’s largest retailer.
Eminent domain abuse is wrong regardless of whom it victimizes. And, if the most powerful among us is not safe from abusive condemnations, the situation is much graver for those with fewer resources. That’s why it’s particularly important for the California Legislature to step up to the plate and prohibit localities from using eminent domain for private profit.
