Task force to study Missouri eminent domain statutes

A nine-member task force has been formed by Gov. Matt Blunt to determine whether the U.S. Supreme Court ruling against homeowners in Connecticut will have any effect in Missouri. In the case, Kelo et al v. City of New London, homeowners sought protection from having their homes taken by a private developer for a commercial project. The use of eminent domain requires the government to show that the public will benefit from a project. In the Supreme Court decision, five justices ruled that increased tax revenues were public good.

Blunt’s general counsel, Terry Jarrett, is chairman of the Missouri Task Force on Eminent Domain. Other members, announced July 20, are Howard Wright, retired city attorney, Springfield; Gerard T. Carmody, attorney, St. Louis; Chris Goodson, entrepreneur, St. Louis; Sen. Chuck Gross, UMB Bank’s vice president of business development, St. Charles; Rep. Steve Hobbs, president of Hobbs Farm Inc., Mexico; Leslie Holloway, director of state and local governmental affairs for Missouri Farm Bureau, Jefferson City; Lewis R. Mills, public counsel and the state’s consumer advocate in utility regulation for the Department of Economic Development, Jefferson City; and Spencer R. Thomson, an attorney with Blackwell, Sanders, Peper Martin, Kansas City.

“My understanding of the tight deadline is that they are hopeful that the committee will be able to propose some legislation that can come up during the General Assembly next session to kind of close this loophole and tighten this in Missouri,” Robinson said.

The task force, Robinson said, will consider the definition of eminent domain, what Missouri’s constitution says about it and what, if anything, this court decision means in Missouri.

Property owners

Lynn Thompson, vice president of Thompson Sales, feels the Kelo decision has the potential to harm property owners in the Ozarks. Property at 727 E. St. Louis St., owned by the car dealership since 1955, was taken by eminent domain in 1998, and is now part of Jordan Valley Park.

“We went into it with a positive attitude, the fact that we felt as though this was going to help downtown and was going to be done in a proper way,” Thompson said.

After a trial and an appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court, the Thompsons were awarded a new trial but settled with the city out of court in July 2002 for $3.5 million.

“The settlement was fine. That part I was fine with. The whole process was awful. You just feel like you have no power, like you’re taken advantage of, there’s nothing you can do,” he said.

Thompson hopes the task force considers property owners as they make their decisions.

“If it continues like it is, obviously, the government can come in and take your property and give you whatever they want to. That’s not good,” Thompson said. “I’ve never really talked to any (landowners) that have said, ‘Boy, that was really a good deal. I liked that.’”

A nonissue?

Congressman Roy Blunt is critical of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision on the Kelo case, calling it an unfair ruling that penalizes Americans who have worked hard to own private property.

“State and local governments should only use eminent domain for purposes that serve the public good,” Blunt said. “Historically, that has meant taking private land for public facilities like government buildings, roads and dams. Eminent domain should never be used to the advantage of one party over another.”

But Daniel Wichmer, city attorney for the city of Springfield, said the decision is a nonissue in Missouri.

“In the Connecticut case, they specifically said economical development is a reason for condemnation. It’s in their statute. All the Supreme Court said was, ‘You’ve got it in your statute. As far as the federal Fifth Amendment goes, we don’t have a problem with it.’ But Missouri doesn’t have that provision in its statutes,” Wichmer said.

The case, Wichmer said, is getting more attention than it merits because it was limited to a state that explicitly said developers could use economic development as a condemnation reason.

“The Supreme Court only said, in this state’s case, it doesn’t violate the federal constitution,” Wichmer said. “People are overlooking that and I can’t stress enough that’s why … I don’t view it as a constitution change in condemnation law.”

Eminent domain cases, he said, are best left to the community.

“The elected officials of the community know the community and know the circumstances of why it may or may not be a public use,” he said, adding that the defining “public use” is not always clear-cut.

“What if a developer came up to the mayor of Mack’s Creek while they were in the middle of this financial distress and said, ‘Hey, I think I can deliver Midwest Disney World, but here’s what I need out of the city. I need this piece of land over here and I need sewer and roads and water to get to it.’”

Such an example, he said, might create economic development, generate jobs and stabilize a town. “Is that economic development or is that public use?” Wichmer said.

Springfield, Wichmer said, won’t be affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling. “My official comment on the case is it doesn’t change anything the city of Springfield has ever done, nor will it. Springfield only uses condemnation as a very last resort for what we believe to be clearly public uses. That’s not going to change,” he said.

[[In-content Ad]]