Missouri Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Eminent Domain
03-19-2008Missouri’s Supreme Court ruled yesterday in favor of the St. Louis suburb of Arnold, giving that municipality the right to condemn a dentist’s property to make way for a new commercial development. The Court’s ruling could have a broad impact across the state.
In deciding a case where eminent domain laws could be used for private development supported by tax breaks, the Court struck down a lower court’s ruling that would have blocked Arnold and many other small communities from using eminent domain laws in this manner.
At issue is an attempt by the town of Arnold to deem the dental office of Homer Tourkakis as “blighted” so it could be removed to make way for a multi-million dollar shopping center that will include a Lowe’s hardware store, an Office Depot, and other businesses. The city intends to use a method known as tax increment financing - diverting a portion of future tax revenue - to fund the development.
Tourkakis argued that Arnold had no right to do so citing that the small town was not a charter city as defined by the state constitution which says, “laws may be enacted, and any city or county operating under a constitutional charter may enact ordinances, providing for the clearance, replanning, reconstruction, redevelopment and rehabilitation of blighted, substandard or insanitary areas” using eminent domain.
In Missouri, charter cities are defined as municipalities of at least 5,000 people at the time the town was incorporated and whose residents have approved the equivalent of a local constitution. There are 37 charter cities in the state. Arnold is not one of them.
But in its 6-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution does not limit the power of eminent domain only to charter cities. In writing for the majority opinion, Judge Mary Russell said, “The Legislature has the right to authorize the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent domain. Unless restricted by the constitution, the power is unlimited and practically absolute.”
In the lone dissenting opinion, Judge Richard Teitelman wrote that the state constitution requires non-charter cities to receive legislative approval before pursuing eminent domain. He added that Arnold had not been granted such express approval by the Legislature in this case.
Property groups along with Tourkakis’ attorney, Tim Sandefur, denounced the ruling and warned that local governments might feel stronger support to seize private properties.
“This decision is a tragedy for all Missourians,” Sandefur said. “The Court has expanded the power of eminent domain far beyond what the legislature intended.”
Sandefur went on to say, “Every Missourian is now at risk of losing his or her home, business, farm, or church, for the benefit of politically powerful corporations. “The Court has given an enormous new power to every town, village, and hamlet in the State to seize land for virtually any reason.”
Ron Calzone, who chairs the Missouri Citizens for Property Rights said, “This is a scary, scary decision.”
Jerry Carmody, attorney for Arnold, said that property groups’ fears are overblown. He said the Supreme Court’s ruling “confirms” what he always understood, “that municipalities in the state of Missouri have the power to use eminent domain.” Carmody also confirmed that the town of Arnold intends to continue proceedings against Tourkakis’ property.