Cities Use Blight Designations to Seize Property for Developers, Lawsuit Alleges

Business owners in a Missouri town are suing after the city declared their area blighted to seize properties for a private developer, a common strategy used by cities to circumvent eminent domain laws, according to attorneys.

In the quaint town of Brentwood, Missouri, the lives of small business owners like Roxanne and Carter Maier have been thrown into turmoil by the city's recent declaration that their business district is "blighted." This designation has paved the way for the city to seize their properties and hand them over to a private developer in a $436 million deal.

The Maiers, who have poured their hearts and savings into renovating their dance studio, are devastated by the prospect of losing their livelihood. They are not alone. Several other businesses and property owners in the area are facing the same fate, their dreams of sustaining their businesses and building a future in Brentwood hanging in the balance.

The city's decision to declare the area blighted has raised eyebrows among community members and legal experts alike. Despite the city's claims of deteriorating conditions and unsafe buildings, residents and business owners argue that their properties are in good condition and that the city is using a vague blight designation as a pretext to seize their properties for private gain.

Attorney Bob Belden, who represents the businesses in their lawsuit against the city, argues that cities across the country are exploiting the elastic definitions of blight to condemn entire neighborhoods, even if individual properties are not in need of rehabilitation. He cites the infamous Kelo v. New London case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that cities could seize property for economic development, a decision that has been widely criticized and led to backlash in many states.

Missouri law includes a carve-out that allows cities to seize blighted areas, but Belden argues that Brentwood's broad interpretation of blight is a gross misapplication of the law. He points to the fact that the city's blight study notes that many of the buildings in the area are simply older, not necessarily unsafe or dilapidated.

In response to the city's blight designation, business owners and residents are fighting back. They have filed a lawsuit, alleging that the city failed to provide substantial evidence of deterioration and unsafe conditions, and that the blight declaration is merely a pretext to seize private property on behalf of a developer.

The developer in this case, Green Street, is a major St. Louis development firm with a history of financial problems and legal disputes. Despite the company's promises of generating significant revenue for the city and school district, business owners are skeptical and fear that the development will ultimately harm their community.

The lawsuit alleges that the city failed to inform businesses that their properties were considered blighted and that they could be seized. It also argues that the city used the blight designation to circumvent eminent domain laws, which require the government to demonstrate a legitimate public purpose for taking private property.

The case raises fundamental questions about property rights and the role of cities in economic development. It echoes the concerns raised by the Kelo decision, highlighting the potential for governments to abuse their power of eminent domain and deprive citizens of their property without just compensation.

As the case proceeds through the courts, the business owners of Brentwood hope to reclaim their property and protect their livelihoods. Their fight is a reminder that the fight for property rights is an ongoing battle, and that cities must not be allowed to use blight designations as a tool to steal private property for private gain.