The ignorance of community “leaders” can leave one breathless at times. Consider the case of the executive director of a group known as the Downtown Neighbors Alliance (DNA).
The nonprofit group’s mission statement says it is “focused on enhancing the quality of Downtown life for the ever-growing number of residents and visitors.”
Which, in the current state of things in downtown Pittsburgh is either an oxymoron, a non sequitur or both.
That said,upset with the slow pace of redevelopment of the old Frank & Seder department store Downtown, the DNA boss wants to discuss with city officials how to use – Wait for it! — eminent domain to get the job done.
Whoa! And hold the phone!
Indeed, redevelopment of the block-encompassing building has languished for years. But it remains private property. Attempting to use eminent domain crosses a bright legal line.
Did not the failed Fifth-At-Forbes eminent domain debacle in downtown Pittsburgh more than two decades ago teach that lesson?
Apparently not.
The DNA chief conceded to the Post-Gazette that he does not know the ins and outs of eminent domain law (that’s obvious) and typically is not a fan of government taking.
But, doggone it, this case is different, he claims.
“When I think this holds up development of a whole city and we are held hostage, I think this is a perfect solution to use eminent domain,” he said.
No. It. Is. Not.
Such a tactic would pervert the eminent domain law, which is to be used only for a public purpose – such as for the construction of public structure. Even then, abuse of the procedure has run rampant in Pittsburgh and other cities.
Critics of the lack of redevelopment at the site have complained of the building being a graffiti-covered eyesore that, in some cases, has become a haven for the homeless and reeks of urine.
But there are laws to deal with such things that should be enforced. And if the building owner – Stark Enterprises of Cleveland – is complicit in those problems (i.e., failure to secure the property or keep it cleaned up), it should be fined.
Additionally, reimbursement should be sought for any third-party cleaning that has taken place, as apparently is the case in this matter.
But attempting to invoke eminent domain would be, as one real estate attorney told the P-G, a poor use of taxpayer dollars and, as we note, if successful, set a very bad precedent for future attempted illegal takings.
Such slippery slopes always are best left unwatered.
Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
