BCT Editorial – 2/20/08

This page was last updated on February 20, 2008.

Hitting back; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 20, 2008.

The subtitle of the editorial is “Proposed legislation would give state’s municipalities more power to fight blight.”

Most reasonable people understand eventually local governments need tools to do something about true blight in their communities. As with everything, the Devil is in the details of the legislation. Without proper safeguards, blight laws are sure to be abused, probably even more so than existing eminent domain laws. Need proof? The U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 (Kelo v. New London) ruled that governments could abuse eminent domain to take private property and give it to someone else even if the only reason to do so was to increase tax revenue.

The Times position on the issue of abusing eminent domain is mixed. In “A fine line,” the Times referred to the Kelo decision as “in favor of … misuse of eminent domain.” The Times took a similar position in a “Salutes & Boots” installment.

In January, 2007, however, the Times came out fully behind the City of Pittsburgh taking a non-blighted property in use at the time (Garden Theatre) and giving it to another private owner. Though no one in authority will admit it, everyone else knows the only reason for taking the Garden Theatre was because it had been a porn theater since the 1970s. According to David McMunn, president of the Mexican War Streets Society, “There’s some water damage to the plaster, and a lot of the ornate features on the interior have been painted over. But for the most part, the building is intact and most definitely can be restored.” The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review story goes on to say, “The interior has its original chandeliers, ornate wall sconces and wrought-iron archways leading to the main seating area.” The neighborhood is even looking to have the building designated as a city landmark so it can’t be torn down. Need more proof the property didn’t meet any reasonable definition of “blighted?”

You’ll note that nowhere in the editorial does the Times even mention the potential for abuse. Who gets to define “blight?”