Eminent domain ups the ante in talks over bar
There are few legal actions more repulsive than the use of eminent domain.
The notion of government wielding its power to force individuals to give up their private property will always be anathema to most of us.
In fact, one of the few issues over the past 20 years that sparked bipartisan consensus was the June 2005 Kelo v. City of New London decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that government can employ eminent domain to force the sale of private property for the cause of economic development.
That decision sparked widespread disgust and prompted 25 states to consider changing their eminent domain laws. That year, the Texas Legislature passed a law preventing private property from being seized to benefit another private interest.
“I draw the line when government begins to pick winners and losers among competing private interests and the loser is the poor Texan who owns the land to begin with,” said thengov. Rick Perry.
Everything we tend to hate about eminent domain was contained within the infamous Chavez Ravine saga in Los Angeles. In the 1950s, 300 families in that tight-knit Mexican American community were evicted and saw their homes, schools and churches razed, to create space for a public housing project that never materialized.
Ultimately, the city of Los Angeles sold the property to the Brooklyn Dodgers so they could build a baseball stadium there.
This is the prism through which many of us see eminent domain and it explains why there is considerable grassroots sympathy for Vince Cantu, the owner of the downtown bar Moses Rose’s Hideout.
The nonprofit Alamo Trust and the Texas General Land Office have tried to purchase Cantu’s property to make room for a $150 million visitor center and museum that will be part of an elaborate Alamo Plaza makeover. With the two sides far apart (Cantu has asked for as much as $17 million and the Alamo Trust offered him $3.5 million in December), the San Antonio City Council voted last week to authorize the use of eminent domain for Cantu’s property.
Since we’ve established the inherently distasteful nature of the eminent domain process, let’s look at the specifics of this battle.
This isn’t a case in which a property owner is being forced to give up something that they insist on keeping.
Cantu made it clear at last week’s council meeting that he is thoroughly open to the idea of selling his property. He just wants more money. That’s perfectly understandable, but if his suggested price is eight times what independent appraisers have determined to be the property value, that creates something of an unbridgeable chasm.
It’s also important to consider that authorizing the use of eminent domain, as the council has done, does not necessarily mean that Cantu’s property will be taken.
This maneuver is about bargaining leverage. Up until now, Cantu had the leverage, because he owns something the Alamo Trust needs.
The authorization of eminent domain tightens his range of options. It compels him to lower his sale price, because if he doesn’t, he’ll have no say in the matter.
It’s also important to see through the hyperbole of some of Cantu’s rhetoric. Last week, after telling council members about all the work that’s gone into making his business viable, he said, “Now the state is asking the city to steal it from me.”
This process will likely end with Cantu receiving less money for the Moses Rose’s property than he wanted, but it’s not being stolen from him.
He also threw out suggestions, with no evidence to back it up, that he’s being targeted for abuse because he’s a Mexican American.
Cantu is persuasive when he talks about the challenge he would face, at the age of 60, of trying to regroup after selling his property.
“If I would take the appraised value amount and pay off my note, I’d basically be putting myself out of a job and have no way to continue to have my kid in college,” he said last week.
“It’s going to be hard for me to find a job after doing what I’ve been doing for 12 years.”
With that in mind, the best possible outcome would be a civil, respectful negotiation process over the next few weeks that takes Cantu’s financial challenges into account while also recognizing that the Alamo project has its own fiscal limitations.
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution places two limitations on the power of eminent domain: private property can only be taken for public use and only if just compensation is provided to the owner.
There is no denying the fact that the Alamo redesign serves a public use. There’s still time to sort out the just compensation part.