Borders eminent domain pledge makes some Internetz angry
October 21, 2009 at 4:33 pm by Andisheh Nouraee in NewsAtlanta City Council President and mayoral candidate Lisa Borders said today she’d use eminent domain to take blighted properties away from their owners.
Within minutes of Borders’ comment showing up on AJC.com, typically even-tempered local political bloggers Jason Pye and James “Griftdrift” Williams expressed outrage.
Wrote Pye:
“If you give a damn about private property rights and you live in the City of Atlanta, do not vote for @lborders.”
And quoth the Griftdrift:
“I suppose give Borders credit for blunt honesty, but advocating the government deciding who has blighted property and who is all lilies and roses is shocking. Hell, it’s frightening.”
It’s worth noting, neither Griftdrift nor Jason live within the city limits. I wonder how Borders’ position will be/has been received in parts of Atlanta where derelict or abandoned properties are real-life Honeycomb Hideouts for drug addicts, drug dealers, and gangs.
As a former Southwest Atlanta resident who attended more than a few neighborhood meetings, I don’t recall fear of eminent domain ever being publicly discussed. The dominant theme of every neighborhood meeting I ever attended in Southwest Atlanta was “Hey city government, why can’t you do more to help us clean up our neighborhoods?”
I’m only guessing, but if city residents think eminent domain is gonna help clear their neighborhoods of rotting, abandoned homes, I believe many will support it.
UPDATE: Jason Pye has written more on the subject on his blog.
October 21st, 2009 at 4:55 pm
I’ve been pretty consistent with my outrage against E.D.
October 21st, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Tempest in a teapot?
October 21st, 2009 at 5:11 pm
OK, if neither of these drones live in the city and can vote for the mayoral election, why are we giving them oxygen for their vitriol? Ugh…
Some real news please? I already had my taste of sour news over at Political Insider.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:16 pm
I wasn’t questioning your consistency on the issue.
I was struck by the fact that two bloggers known around these parts for expressing opinions without expressing anger seem pissed off.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:17 pm
When is the last time E.D. was used by a politician to actually improve a blighted neighborhood? It’s a vehicle to push out other homeowners to clear the way for profiteer developers who receive other tax incentives from the city to put in strip malls, big box stores for the “promise” of sales tax dollars coming in. I can’t speak for Griftdrift or Jason, but I most definitely DO have a vote in this election, and it ISN’T going to Borders.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:23 pm
I agree with you Andisheh – I think residents in the city would be interested in an effective tool to root out drug dens in their neighborhoods, but I don’t think eminent domain is the answer by a country mile. I would rather see more consistent enforcement of city building codes and a significant increase in fines for repeat offenders used to clean up problem houses. If the homeowner is unwilling or unable to pay the fines, then the city should be able to force the sale of the property – preferably to an organization that develops low-income housing.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:25 pm
I’m more upset you didn’t get my ED joke!
October 21st, 2009 at 5:33 pm
I’m neither supporting nor dissing Borders’ proposal. I was just wondering aloud how it might be received by its target audience. Griftdrift and Jason are not the target audience. Neither am I really. I live in Decatur now.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Just for kicks, I think Atlanta should use eminent domain on Decatur.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:37 pm
It is an interesting question. I’d say more but your communist proxy is blocking my computer. Sent from my hippie iPhone.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:39 pm
As long as eminent domain takes the crack houses out of Atlanta and replaces them with trendy little galleries and restaurants, I’m all for it. Then again, we don’t really have this problem in Buckhead.
October 21st, 2009 at 7:45 pm
If another OTP blogger can take a stab at this Andi, I’m in.
(former resident of Underwood Hills, fwiw)
I understand your point that some neighborhoods may find this appealing on the surface.
But the last time this was tried in Atlanta, it was called “urban renewal”. That program took out most of the Summerhill neighborhood and gave us the old Atlanta Fulton County Stadium and a bunch of parking lots.
I think a well placed mailer by Reed or Norwood saying “Lisa Borders and her big developer friends want to tear down your neighborhood to build Arthur Blank a new dome” could change their minds.
My $.02
October 21st, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Yeah right… Broders worked for big developers for years and if you are naive enough to buy her ED line then you are a fool. Sure it may eradicate the occasional crack house, but the ultimate goal is to give big developers free rein over any parcel of land they want. DO NOT TRUST THIS WOMAN! And as a downtown resident I have to ask Mr.Nouraee, why do you think that only intown people should be allowed to comment on this issue? You seem like a real snob.
October 21st, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Dear WTF:
Um, WTF are you talking about? I neither stated nor implied only intowners were allowed to comment. I quoted the comments of two out-of-towners; a rather clear indication I take their views seriously.
Andy
October 21st, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Just so you know, this is one of those pander to the crowd kind of things that isn’t something that should be the deciding factor in the election. You can’t really “Kelo” in Georgia, so Borders’ statement can safely be taken at face value.
http://www.gabar.org/public/pdf/sections/emdomain/edspring06news.pdf
October 21st, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Dash,
True at the moment. But there’s a good chance that will have to be reversed because it’s essentially unconstitutional.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:48 am
I wasn’t there for the AJC’s Lisa Borders interview today, but I was there Tuesday night in SE Atlanta when Lisa made similar comments at a mayoral debate. She said she believed in “zero tolerance” for absentee owners of boarded-up homes, and was particularly concerned about the effect those properties have in neighborhoods where every other home is boarded up. She was answering a question about what to do with homes that had been so trashed by thieves and vandals that they were no longer livable (if that’s a word).
I believe Norwood made similar comments about tearing down crack houses. I didn’t take notes on her comments. But, on this topic in this particular context, I didn’t hear much of a difference between Borders and Norwood. And, although applause was not allowed, I believe the crowd liked those answers. There were no complaints about property rights.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:37 am
I wish people would Google eminent domain before posting or speaking on it. Brian, the government can’t seize property for private development. They just can’t. IT’S AGAINST THE LAW. If you happen to live in an area where drug activity is rampant then I would assume that you’d much rather have a city park next to your home than a crack den.
But maybe you like dens of crack. I, for one, don’t (I couldn’t help myself. I’m feeling self righteous.)
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:20 am
Wow, when will people learn you can’t comment on something you do not understand or know something about the topic, eminent domain?
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:30 am
Wow, when will people learn you can’t comment on something you do not understand or know something about
That’s just crazy talk.
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:49 am
But…but…if the government is allowed to take away our abandoned houses, what’s to stop them from taking our guns and bibles too?
Seriously. Having the city buy abandoned properties and turning them into pocket parks is a no brainer. What do you want next door — an abandoned house filled with crack pipes and used condoms or a small park filled with grass, trees and piles of dog poo left by irresponsible neighbors? I’ll take the poo pile any day.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:06 am
Dash,
True at the moment. But there’s a good chance that will have to be reversed because it’s essentially unconstitutional.
That would be a tall order. The constitution was amended as part of the process. For better or worse, the people have spoken.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:09 am
Putting aside the high-level concerns regarding eminent domain for a moment, with the City of Atlanta in such poor financial shape, where exactly would the cash come from to provide all these owners with just compensation (not to mention the likely legal costs)?
Also, my previous experience in witnessing dilapidated properties that were bulldozed due to excessive crime is that they typically turned into garbage-strewn, overgrown empty lots with a crime problem. You’re bulldozing the symptom, not the problem.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:19 am
The properties involved would need to be in areas that are being held back relative to surrounding areas. Boulevard between Freedom and Ponce comes to mind. But again, it’s a non-starter.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:41 am
Nast, I agree that tending to the social-economic problems that drive crime is a primary long-term goal, but given the the long turnaround on that goal I think it would be wise to tend to these ’symptoms’ in the near future for the sake of the present-day livability and vitality of communities.
Surely a trash-strew, overgrown lawn is a less corrosive presence in a neighborhood than a dilapidated shelter for drug addicts, dealers, and gang members.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Donny, it happens all the time.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news/fortune500/retail_eminentdomain/index.htm
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Darin, that might be the case if there was only one or two problem properties on a street that is otherwise stable, but not in the most severely decayed areas. It would take funding, maintenance and local vigilance to turn an empty lot into a safe and usable park, and unfortunately it’s often the absence of those things that allowed the deterioration in the first place.
Twenty years ago I went to a high school on the South Side of Chicago that was surrounded by abandoned and condemned houses, apartments, even a school. Around my last year there the City came in and bulldozed everything. Now 20 years later, many of the lots still sit derelict and the area is just as unsafe.
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Your story about South Chicago speaks for itself, Nast. Atlanta should take action now to decrease the damage done by blighted properties before the problem grows so big that there are no solutions apart from the kind of drastic measures such as the ones taken by Mayor Daley there.
Atlanta has a high unemployment rate and a high foreclosure rate. There is little stopping susceptible neighborhoods here from being affected by blight in ways similar to the sad cases seen in Chicago, Indianapolis, Kansas City and other cities.
Kansas City’s government even has a Dangerous Buildings and Vacant Property Operations Division to deal with blight there. The Atlanta City government, with it’s economic woes, would do well to nip the problem of blight in the bud before it blossoms into something that will become much more costly, both in terms of money and community damage, down the road.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:02 pm
I agree with Grift and Pye.
I live in Midtown.
I will vote.
I will not vote for Borders.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Everyone shares the stated goal: un-blighting and helping responsible, law-abiding, code-abiding citizens by not letting derelict properties ruin communities.
Atlanta’s chronic inability to enforce codes created this:
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A151971
And countless tinier versions all over town.
Is Atlanta government capable of tackling this sort of thing without more eminent domain power?
It’s not a loaded or rhetorical question. I’m wondering what people think.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:11 pm
It seems like at one of these many neighborhood meetings, at code enforcement official made it sound like the issue was a budget issue, and there are already processes in place to handle code/blight issues. That is, there is a very small pot of money in the budget for bulldozing houses. Even if you magically, legally declared 1,000 or so houses ready for the bulldozer, there is still significant cost and liability with bulldozing a house (in the case where it is going to become a vacant lot and not a football stadium.) Recently, this happened in Adair park, where after months and months of code enforcement, a burned down home was finally dozed.
I would imagine that it costs the city something like 50k to tear down a house. If we followed the existing city codes and the city actually fined the offenders (and could hire more code officers then), then we might get somewhere.
Also, all of this hogwash about affordable housing irks me. Anyway, how much more affordable can it get? Want to rent a 3 bdrm. house for $600, ok, done. Want to live there on Section 8? Ok, done. Want to buy the house for 50k? Ok, done. You can do all of that right now. What affordable housing really means is more income redistribution and more graft. Oh, I get it, poor people will only live in a brand new condo. The problem with “affordable housing” is that there is no precise definition of what it means.
October 24th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
My take – there are better tools to use for this purpose. The “just compensation” piece of this brings us back to the same old problem – where is the money coming from? And why couldn’t we just buy the properties, then? We are mostly talking about bank-owned/foreclosed properties, right?
http://terminal-station.blogspot.com/2009/10/idea-on-eminent-domain-bit-silly.html