Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 17
17
In its response to the survey, Caltrans observed that nomic development and private commercial enterprise,"
there "are certain areas along major freeways that are the term "public use" does include "[t]he acquisition of
currently being widened that perhaps have been desig- real property to remove structures beyond repair, public
nated blighted by the local jurisdiction" but there was nuisances, structures unfit for human habitation or use,
no "specific knowledge of a `blighted' designation [with and abandoned property when such structures or prop-
respect to] communities."185 The department's response erty constitute a menace to health and safety."193
observed that the processes for its right-of-way activi- Oregon's response to the survey stated that in Ore-
ties do not change in regard to blighted versus non- gon, "[i]n the realm of using condemnation for urban
blighted designations but that the involvement of redevelopment, the definition of `blighted property' was
blighted property "may have an impact...in the plan- modified to include actual physical deterioration of tar-
ning stages when investigating environmental justice get properties."194
issues on a given alignment."186 Under some states' statutes that permit takings of
As for cases involving post-Kelo reforms and takings blighted property, the condition of streets is a factor
of blighted property, a Louisiana case concerned an that may be considered in determining whether an area
amendment of the Louisiana Constitution;187 the court is blighted and whether the use of eminent domain is
held that the property at issue had "not been taken for permissible.195 In an Illinois case, the court upheld a
the predominant use of a private party nor for the pur- village's determination of blight in connection with a
pose of transferring the property to a private person."188 redevelopment project based on various statutory fac-
The court held that Louisiana's constitutional proscrip- tors. One of the factors was deterioration, which was
tion that defined by the statute to include the condition of road-
"property shall not be taken...(a) for predominant use by ways, alleys, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and off-street
any private person or entity; or (b) for transfer of owner- parking, as well as the presence of crumbling pave-
ship to any private person or entity"...merely prevents ment, potholes, depressions, and loose paving mate-
expropriations initiated with the goal of transferring pri- rial.196
vate property to a specific recipient, rather than as a bar
to expropriation with a legitimate basis that may include C. Designation of Blight on a Property-by-
a subsequent transfer.189 Property Basis
No cases were located for the digest since the Kelo One of the most pervasive post-Kelo reforms in
decision or post-Kelo reforms that involved a transpor- states authorizing the taking of blighted property is to
tation department and a taking of blighted property. require that a condemnor make a determination of
blight on a property-by-property basis.197 As a result of
B. Definition of Blighted Property post-Kelo reforms, Georgia limits takings of blighted
Unlike Florida and New Mexico, it does not appear property to one property at a time so that it is no longer
that other states prohibit the use of the taking of
blighted property for transfer to another person or pri-
vate entity for redevelopment.190 In response to the Kelo
case, some statutes have been amended to narrow the
193
definition of blight. Thus, some states revised their N.H. REV. STAT. §§ 205:3-b(I)(c) and 498-A:2(VII)(a)(3).
definition so that property may be designated as See also OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 1.08(C) (stating that in "de-
termining whether a property is a blighted parcel or whether
blighted and subject to redevelopment when it is shown
an area is a blighted area or slum for the purposes of this sec-
that the property is unsafe191 or when it presents a tion, no person shall consider whether there is a comparatively
threat to the health and safety of the community.192 better use...or whether the property could generate more tax
In New Hampshire, although a public use does "not revenues if put to another use").
include the public benefits resulting from private eco- 194
Oregon DOT's Survey Response, dated Mar. 10, 2011.
195
N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 205:1(d) (street layouts as a fac-
of eminent domain is delegated may not exercise the power of tor preventing proper development of the real property). See
eminent domain to take private property for the purpose of Fulmore v. Charlotte County, 928 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA
preventing or eliminating slum or blight conditions"). 2006) (stating that although "roads and roadways are synony-
185
Caltrans' Survey Response, dated Mar. 18, 2011. mous, a substantial number of deteriorated or deteriorating
186
Id. roads is a different concept than a predominance of defective or
187 inadequate roadways").
LA. CONST. art. 1, § 4(B).
196
188 Capital Fitness of Arlington Heights, Inc., v. Village of
New Orleans Redevelopment Auth. v. Johnson, 16 So. 3d
Arlington Heights, 394 Ill. App. 3d 913, 923, 915 N.E.2d 826,
569, 583 (La. App. 2009).
189
835 (Ill. App. 2009) (citing 65 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/11-74.4-
Id. at 584 (emphasis supplied). 3(a)(1)(C)), appeal denied, 234 Ill. 2d 518, 920 N.E.2d 1071
190
Castle Report, supra note 40. (2009).
191
ALA. CODE § 24.2-2(C)(c)(1); GA. CODE ANN. § 22-1- 197
Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,
1(1)(A)(i); KAN. STAT. ANN. § 26-501b(e). Michigan, Missouri (until a preponderance are blighted), North
192
DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 29, § 9501A(c)(3)(b); N.H. REV. STAT. Carolina, Oregon, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin (each spe-
ANN. §§ 205:1(b) ("menace to the health and safety") and 498- cific property must be blighted), and Wyoming. See Castle Re-
A:2(VII(a)(3)); WYO. STAT. § 1-26-801(c). port, supra note 40.
