Peoria Pundit

Editor’s note: Back in November 2004, I wrote articles for what was supposed to be Peoria’s new alternative newspaper, the River City Times. It was a fun gig, although it ended badly. The paper’s not around anymore. I have no idea if the publisher is still around. I am still owed more than $100 for work I did, and the amount is worth trying to get it.

But I was turning out some good work for the plucky little rag, including this piece about an issue that was near and dear to my libertarian heart: Eminent domain. The reason I am reprinting it and the accompanying photos will be made clear.

Enjoy.

In the closing years of the last decade, a rich and powerful businessman came to Fanny Ort and informed her that she would be sacrificing the home she and her late husband Robert raised their children.

Her East Bluff neighborhood was in decline, and the City of Peoria had decided it needed to be redeveloped. Besides, the new shopping center would bring in more property and sales taxes.

“They said either you take it or the city would use eminent domain and then we would have to take whatever they offered,” she said. “We weren’t very happy.”

Today, Fanny lives in a home a quarter of the size.

And a vacant lot sits where her home once stood.

The shopping center is Midtown Plaza, with its anchor store Cubs Foods and a handful of smaller businesses located in the site’s strip mall. Read more »

Last night I was ranting about property rights and eminent domain over on American Guesser. I observed that with the recession, we need to be on the looking for developers and politicians threatening to take private property away to make room for privately-owned projects.

And then it struck me: Are the powers-that-be planning on using eminent domain to grab the land needed to build the spiffy new and taxpayer funded expansion and renovation at the Pere Marquette?

So, I whisked off some letters to members of the council:

The first to reply was Gary Sandberg:

Question: Will the city use eminent domain to make this project happen?

In any earlier discussion, the use of eminent domain has never been mentioned. With the purchase of the Zuccarini /Abraham property by conventional means, I would think that eminent domain is not necessary. The only other potential use would be for he purchase of the underlying land at the Pere Marquette which for nearly a century had been under a land lease I believe. I asked Gary Mathews about what he “HAD” (note tense) purchased with respect to Pere and he stated that he had purchase agreements on both the building and the land. I suspect the presence of the term or power is more indicative of boiler plate and sloppiness of parties drafting the give-away than a power necessary for the development.

Question: Has there been any commitment with the developer to use eminent domain if they have trouble reaching a deal?

Not by the Councilperson, but I have NOT committed to anything more than the availability of any additional H tax from the Hospitality Zone for the local subsidy. In as much as meetings have been ongoing since and before Henry Holling was officially employed by the City as interim City Manager, yet he was involved and attending these meetings, I suspect that whether I have not made any commitment is mute,

Question: If eminent domain comes up for a vote, will you vote for it? Why or why not?

NO! I do NOT believe that the use of eminent domain for private development is legal. I do NOT believe (or have drank the kool-aid to make me believe) that the construction of a hotel, a skywalk, or a parking facility is public benefit. I also do NOT believe that economic development projects meet the legal threshold for public purpose. So NO!

I couldn’t agree more. It’s easy to understand why he has fans.

Patrick Nichting, 5th District, also replied, but he was much more brief:

I have not seen the development agreement so I can not comment as to its content.

Fair enough.

And then Barbara Van Auken, 2nd District, replied:

I know of no plans (or need) to use eminent domain. The City could not use eminent domain for this project in any event, as it involves a private versus public development. Even if the Supreme Court hadn’t ruled as it did in such matters, I wouldn’t support use of eminent domain for a private development.

And Mayor Jim Ardis put the issue to rest, as far as this project is concerned:

Eminent domain is always a possibility, but it won’t be necessary as the developer and property owners have already agreed on a price for the property.

Well, that’s that then.

Meanwhile, Merle Widmer takes a lok at the numbers here and here, while C.J. looks at the hype here and here.

UPDATE: Eric Turner replied:

One thing about this council is there is a belief in avoiding Eminent Domain we truly believe in and support property rights and will do all we can to avoid Eminent Domain. Hopefully we can agree by way of fair negotiations. As a council we are willing to work with all involved to avoid the negatives I.e. Eminent Domain.

Peoria Anti-Pundit rightfully calls me to task for not raising a fuss about the situation described in this Journal Star article from two days ago.

Peoria School District 150 is just two properties away from having bought all the land it needs to clear to make way for the new birth-to-8th-grade school it will use to replace Glen Oak School, now located at the corner of East Frye and North Wisconsin avenues.

The home at 815 E. Frye, recently inherited has been gutted to be remodeled into separate apartments. The owner wants $750,000.

The other, a dilapidated rental property at 909 E. Kansas, was bought for less than $4,000 in 1999. The owners want $49,500.

Both of these buildings are unoccupied. They are investments, not homes.

Randall suggests that we all might have been better off night fighting the district’s original effort to build this new school in Glen Oak Park.

As you recall, my opinion throughout that mess was that D-150 didn’t need to replace the building as the quality of the education depended on the teachers and the support given them by the administration. BUILDINGS don’t educate kids, people do. I argued that new school buildings were not needed, and that it they were built, they need not be in the park-like campus setting the district envisioned.

Keeping Glen Oak (and the other schools) was not an option given us by the district. So, I argued for building the new school at the site of the current Glen Oak School.

As to the prices these people want for their properties … the only sane reaqction is to marvel at their audacity. There’s no what in HELL that home on Frye is worth three-quarters of a million dollars. And the dilapidated rental property on Kansas? The slumlord who owns it ought to take the $32,450 he’s been offered, since it’s ten times what was paid for it less than a decade ago.

I’m opposed to using eminent domain to seize property for use by private developers. But THIS is exactly why eminent domain exists, to protect taxpayers from greedy clowns who try to hold taxpayers hostage.

In a fair world, these investors would be handed checks that reflect the value of the homes according to the property taxes they paid.

But all this could have been avoided by building a new, taller building at the site of the current school. It would have been a better fit for the urban residential neighborhood in which it sits, rather than the rural, suburban design the administration had in mind from the very beginning.