The Case for Eminent Domain at Lincoln Place
By Jim
Smith
Eminent Domain – the
government’s taking of private property – has usually been used
against tenants and homeowners. A famous example is the uprooting of an entire
community at Chavez Ravine in the 50s in order to build a sports
stadium.
However, the essence of Eminent Domain is
quite different, and I believe, quite appropriate for the current situation at
Lincoln Place.
AIMCO, the largest
housing corporation in the U.S., is attempting to destroy a large and valued
tract of affordable garden apartments, and in the process, evict all its
residents. The reason AIMCO is doing this is not to benefit the Venice
community, but to maximize its profits by building luxury condominiums at the
site.
Eminent Domain is enshrined in
both the U.S. and California Constitutions. They allow private property to be
taken, but only for a “public
use.”
However, “public
use,” has been interpreted very broadly by the Courts. Elimination of
blight through redevelopment projects is but one example of a public benefit
which satisfies the requirements for Eminent Domain.
What could be more in the public
benefit than preserving 800 units of affordable housing and the homes of the
existing tenants? Because of AIMCO’s refusal to rent units to new tenants,
many of them stand empty at a time when Venice’s lack of affordable
housing is undeniable.
By taking this
valuable housing resource away from a rogue owner that is interested only in
more profits, government would indeed be providing a public
benefit.
Both the City of Los Angeles
and the State of California have the authority to save Lincoln Place. Most eyes
are turned on the City where both the Councilmember and the Mayor have been
sympathetic. The silence of our representatives in Sacramento and Washington has
been deafening.
When Eminent Domain is
invoked, the owner is entitled to “just compensation.” A property
assessor would have to determine the value of Lincoln Place, taking into account
AIMCO’s lack of proper maintenance on many of the buildings.
The final compensation could come out
of the $5 Billion dollar city budget or the $100 Billion state budget, possibly
with the federal Housing and Urban Development Department picking up part of the
tab. The money could be recouped from the affordable rents of 800 families,
singles and seniors.
In all likelihood,
AIMCO would sue in an attempt to keep the property. This could drag out the
realization of Eminent Domain, but in the meantime, evictions would halt. The
outcome of such a suit could be a landmark case in the development of the rights
of tenants. A favorable decision by the Courts could be as earthshaking in the
housing arena as Brown v. Board of Education and Row v. Wade are for civil
rights and women’s rights.
It
remains to be seen if any city or state office holders have the courage to say
“No more evictions!” to a real estate giant, and by so doing, take
their place in the history of the struggle for human rights.
Posted: Mon - December
5, 2005 at 06:27 PM