Dallas Morning News
In South Dallas, eminent domain can be a very dirty word.
City leaders used it against hundreds of landowners, most of them black, in 1969 to expand Cotton Bowl parking for the Dallas Cowboys, who soon left for Irving.
"There's just a history of making the African-American community into nomads, where their communities are never safe," said the Rev. Peter Johnson, who back then helped homeowners win fair market value for their property from city officials.
Now, nearly four decades later, an influential Dallas foundation has rekindled passions over eminent domain – government acquisition of private property for public use – by proposing a fundamental shift in how the tool is used in Texas. Under the plan, a municipality could acquire property through eminent domain in large areas – such as several blocks – deemed "blighted."
The properties would generally then be passed to private developers for commercial and residential development. That would be a vastly different use of a tool that many state leaders believe should be limited to publicly accessible projects.
J. McDonald "Don" Williams, former Trammel Crow chief executive and founder and chairman of the Foundation for Community Empowerment, says redevelopment strategies for blighted areas don't work when they target individual and scattered parcels of land, rather than several blocks at a time.
"It's well meaning, but it's building ghettos of five years from now, 10 years from now," Mr. Williams said. "That's not going to accomplish anything."
His nonprofit has worked for more than a decade to help revitalize southern Dallas.
Longtime area leaders say eminent domain won't address the area's drug use, prostitution and violence. It was misused by the city against vulnerable minority communities in the past and would be misused again, they say.
"Eminent domain, it's good for the developer," former City Council member Al Lipscomb said in an impassioned speech at a recent community meeting. "It hasn't ever been good for the people who live in the area."
The foundation's proposal would require a change in state law. Supporters of the plan are lobbying area lawmakers, including state Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas, who will hold the second in a series of town hall meetings on the issue at 5 p.m. today at the Juanita Craft Recreation Center.
Mr. West says his position will be consistent with what the community wants, but one point seems non-negotiable.
"We won't displace anyone because I won't be a party to displacing persons," he said.
The outlook in Austin is uncertain. Numerous bills addressing eminent domain were filed this session, but many would further restrict eminent domain.
National backlash
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that cities can use eminent domain for private development to generate tax revenue. The ruling prompted a national backlash, as state legislatures moved to protect against land grabs. That year, Texas legislators approved a law restricting the use of eminent domain for private economic development.
Though that law says eminent domain can be used in "blighted" areas, it is unclear when that would apply, said Larry Casto, the chief lobbyist for the city of Dallas. What is clear, Mr. Casto said, is the city can use eminent domain for traditional public uses, including roads, schools and parks.
"I would say in every other instance it is questionable what powers the city has," Mr. Casto said.
The Foundation for Community Empowerment wants to broaden those powers in the current Legislature. Details of the proposal could change, including which and how many municipalities would be affected, but the organization is pushing for changes in law that include these components:
•A municipality could designate a wide area as blighted based on objective criteria, including the male unemployment rate, crime rate, property value and percent of unfit and undeveloped parcels.
•After public hearings and in accordance with a city council-approved development plan, the local government could initiate eminent domain in the designated blighted area to acquire commercial property, vacant and abandoned lots, rental property and multifamily units. Eminent domain, however, could not be used to acquire single-family, owner-occupied residences.
•Displaced renters would be eligible for a relocation package, including the option to stay in the neighborhood after it's redeveloped. After the property is acquired, it would most likely be handed off to private developers, community development corporations or another nongovernmental entity for development.
Though any eminent domain legislation would probably apply to other Texas cities, the foundation's proposal was prompted by its development plans for the Frazier Courts neighborhood of South Dallas.
The area comprises more than 1,100 acres, roughly bounded by Scyene Road, Fitzhugh Avenue, South Haskell Road and Parkdale Lake. More than 33 percent of families in the Frazier area are below the poverty line. The jobless rate tops 61 percent. And nearly 60 percent of residents did not graduate from high school, according to 2000 census data.
Foundation officials say they are working with Dallas on the proposal. City officials, however, say this is the foundation's initiative. The city is involved primarily to ensure proper safeguards are in place to protect the community, but the proposal is not part of the City Council's legislative agenda, officials said.
"I have had no indication from the City Council whatsoever that they want to pursue this," Mr. Casto said.
Looking at alternatives
A recent forum hosted by Mr. West at the Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center offered a glimpse into a debate with racial and historical implications.
"They are taking our property for others, for other people, not for us," said Diane Ragsdale, former City Council member and head of the South Dallas/Fair Park InnerCity Development Corp., based in Frazier. City Council member Leo Chaney,whose district includes South Dallas, also said he does not support eminent domain. Several projects are under way without it, he said.
Nat Tate, president and chief executive officer of Frazier Revitalization Inc., an arm of the foundation, spoke in favor of the proposal, saying slumlords and drug dealers would benefit without eminent domain.
"Two years from now, three years from now, somebody may come in with deep pockets, just like State-Thomas [neighborhood], and buy it up," said Mr. Tate, a black man with a New York accent. "And you know who's going to make the money? The guy who owned the club that's selling drugs to your kid."
The 81-year-old Mr. Lipscomb, who fought for Fair Park homeowners alongside Mr. Johnson, soon stood up and screamed at Mr. Tate: "Sit down, man! Uncle Tom!"
Omar Jahwar, who works to counter gangs in area public schools, was one of the few people to speak without being jeered. Mr. Jahwar, 33, said the bickering was misguided. His rage is focused on neighborhood criminals.
"If we have to get another law, let's get another law," Mr. Jahwar said. "But let's not play political gymnastics."
Changes are already under way in the Frazier neighborhood. Dallas Area Rapid Transit's nearby southeast rail line extension will open a Fair Park station in September 2009. And the Dallas Housing Authority recently completed the first phase of a $60 million project that will include 314 multifamily rental units, 40 single-family homes, retail property and a 15,000-square-foot Head Start facility.
That project is part of the Forward Dallas comprehensive city plan for Frazier that calls for residential and industrial development, affordable housing, a town center and green space. The Foundation for Community Empowerment says its eminent domain proposal is needed to make the Frazier improvements a reality.
Without this kind of broad redevelopment, progress would be negated by blighted surroundings in just a few years, Mr. Williams says. It's unclear who owns many of the abandoned properties, Mr. Williams and Mr. Tate said, and in some cases property owners willing to sell demand three or four times the market value.
Recent interviews with Frazier residents and area leaders indicate the neighborhood is ready for change.
"The majority of us believe that if you use eminent domain correctly, use it for the drug dealers and the property that's been neglected, we go for that," Anna Hill said of her Dolphin Heights Neighborhood Association members.
Charles "C.B." Williams, 73, and his wife, Debra Williams, 52, raised five children in their shotgun home of 25 years on Le Clerc Avenue. Mr. Williams knows how eminent domain was used previously, but he trusts history won't repeat itself.
"I just don't think they can get away with that again," he said.
Antong "Kiddo" Lucky, an ex-gang member who now works with Mr. Jahwar, said the community is willing to make sacrifices and take risks if it means improving the neighborhood.
"My position is this: Something has to happen," Mr. Lucky said. "I'm not totally opposed to Diane [Ragsdale], I'm not totally opposed to FRI, but it has to be a marriage of the two."
Ms. Ragsdale said using eminent domain against residents is a nonstarter, whether they own or rent their homes. She says law enforcement, code enforcement and building on vacant land are reasonable approaches.
"The same strategies that they put in place to make sure that this madness does not exist in North Dallas is the same attitude and strategies that they need to use to make sure that this mess is cleaned up over here," she said.
Lawmakers weigh in
In Austin, meanwhile, eminent domain remains a hot topic.
State Rep. Beverly Woolley, R-Houston, authored a bill that would allow "blighted" designations only for individual property units, not areas of several blocks. Rep. Bill Callegari, R-Katy, filed a bill that defines blight based on vastly different indicators than what the Foundation for Community Empowerment has proposed.
Of the foundation's proposal to designate large areas "blighted," Mr. Callegari said "that's not where I think we ought to be going."
No matter what happens, Mr. Johnson said, history should not necessarily be the deciding factor.
"I will tend to agree that what happened yesterday – although it may have relevance to today – this is not yesterday," he said. "This is today and you have to address the need for those people and those communities."