Musings: Eminent ugliness

Posted by Rich Schwartzman on July 28, 2021

There are many ugly things that governments do. Slavery, war, genocide, and subjugation, to name a few. But, of course, they do those things because those who want to rule over others say it's for your good, or maybe it's for the greater good. What's the greater good? It's whatever rulers choose that to mean.

Sometimes those in government will smile to your face, tell you what great things they want to do, and once enough people agree, they take your property. It's called eminent domain. It's a forced sale against the owners' wishes, and those property owners play hell trying to fight it.

It's an ancient practice, rooted in the time when kings and other tyrants felt they owned all the lands in which they ruled. Might made right.

In the United States, eminent domain wears a pretty face. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says property may be taken only for public use, and it requires just compensation paid to the owner.

Sometimes, though, that pretty face hides an iron fist. During the New Deal, courts expanded the concept of public use to mean public purpose, which translates to almost anything a government wants to do. It’s easy to change meanings when you control the dictionary.

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court justices opined in Kelo v. City of New London that the local government could take a person's residential property and sell it to private developers. There would be no real public use involved in the forced sale — no highway or hospital would be built — but the city of New London could collect more taxes. A grossly immoral decision designed to increase New London’s tax haul.

Now let's come closer to home and closer in time. School boards in Downingtown and Tredyffrin/Easttown like taking property, too, even when forcing a property owner to take less than what someone else is offering.

Toll Bros. offered a property owner $4.5 million for a 13-acre parcel. The Tredyffrin/Easttown School District said it would move to take the land through eminent domain and set a price of $2.7 million.

Before the COVID pandemic, the Downingtown School District voted to start eminent domain proceedings against property owners because district officials said they'd eventually need to build a new school. But there were no plans for a new school. And the property owners didn't know about the district’s intent until a week before the vote. As a result, one family had to stop taking in foster children because of the decision, and other owners risk losing businesses.

Last month it was reported that East Goshen Township wants to take a family farm for two miles of a walking trail along Paoli Pike, a trail some have referred to as a trail to nowhere.

On July 12, during the final session of the Crebilly II conditional use hearings in Westtown Township, several people called for the use of eminent domain.

An attorney representing Birmingham Township said eminent domain should be used to take property from a Thornbury Township farmer to make room for a left turn lane at Route 926 and S. New Street. Another person said eminent domain should be used to take the entire 320-plus acre Crebilly Farm so that it could not be developed.

And now we come to Chadds Ford Township, where eminent domain is under consideration for the Walkable Chadds Ford project. Property could be taken via the forced sale from property owners at the four corners of the Route 1 and Creek Road/Station Way Road intersection — Hank's Place, Leader's Sunoco, the little strip owned by Casey Lafferty with the U.S. Post Office and Agave restaurant, and the small parcel with a few offices between Creek Road and Antica owned by the Grace family.

Two of the four property owners in question acknowledged getting notice from the township. Jim Leader learned that a piece of his gas station is wanted for the project. A letter from the township said that an appraiser would determine how much Leader would be paid for whatever they take.

The letter, dated April 30, 2021, referencing Walkable Chadds Ford and signed by the township manager reads in part:

“The Chadds Ford Board of Supervisors has decided, based upon comprehensive studies, to construct or improve the above-referenced highway project. The completion of this project will require the acquisition of a portion of your property…”

Joe Grace said his daughter Jackie Grace-Hochman received the same notification, adding that the township will have to pay him a lot of money if it wants to take a piece of his property.

Now, the goals of the Walkable Chadds Ford project sound nice:
“Enhance pedestrian, cyclist, and motorist safety;
Calm traffic;
Create non-vehicular connections between Village destinations;
Extend the length of visits to the Village
Foster & sustain economic development.”

But will Walkable Chadds Ford really be of benefit to the township as a whole? That remains to be seen.

Will it really foster economic development? There’s no new shopping, recreational, or entertainment venue planned for the village. An idea for such a multi-use development was discussed briefly three years ago, but that went nowhere. Residents didn’t want it. So, where will people walk to, and where will they park to begin their walk?

Those have been the questions almost from the beginning. And there are new questions: Who else will be forced to sell off pieces of property to make the Walkable Chadds Ford project a success? And just what does success mean in this regard?

As practiced today, eminent domain is nothing more than a piggish sovereign taking what it wants, while smiling. It’s still ugly, even when wearing lipstick.

About Rich Schwartzman

Rich Schwartzman has been reporting on events in the greater Chadds Ford area since September 2001 when he became the founding editor of The Chadds Ford Post. In April 2009 he became managing editor of ChaddsFordLive. He is also an award-winning photographer.