Maryland cities must prove an immediate need to seize property under “quick-take” laws, ruled the state?s highest court last week.
That is great news. It means that property owners will not find themselves kicked out of their homes or lose businesses for governmenteconomic development projects that exist only in concept.
That is what happened to George Valsamaki, whose property, a three-story building with a bar and a package store at 1924 N. Charles St., the Baltimore Development Corp. tried to take immediately for a yet to exist “mixed use” project.
The U.S. Supreme Court and state laws allow government to seize property for public use, including economic development.
How much power the state should have to seize private property and turn it over to private developers is a question worth debating.
But that was not the issue in this case, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City v. Valsamaki.
The question was why the city should be able to seize property immediately when it didn?t even have an idea of what it would be used for.
Thankfully, the court rightly found that a project that may or may not happen with no specific business planned for a seized property does not equal an immediate need.
And, as the Institute for Justice ? a group that defends private property rights throughout the nation ? noted about the case, “The decision also strongly suggests that the BDC?s underlying reason for acquiring the building is constitutionally suspect, noting that evidence of public use, a requirement of both the U.S. and Maryland constitutions, was ?sparse.?”
Why this was not bang your head into the side of a brick row house obvious to the BDC is mind-boggling. Under the economic development group?s logic “immediate” equals “convenient.”
Its refusal to go through regular condemnation procedures shows total hubris on the part of the BDC.
It also shows why government power must be checked to protect private property rights, one of the most fundamental rights granted to U.S. citizens in the Constitution.
And it bolsters the Maryland Court of Appeals? decision last year forcing the BDC to make its papers and meetings open to the public.
Mr. Valsamaki?s courage to stand up to the city means others throughout the state will not have to battle local governments who want to quickly take their property without immediate need ? or apparent reason.
It also means local governments, including Baltimore City, must work to revitalize the city more transparently and by building consensus among residents and developers.
That may mean a slower redevelopment process, but it also means projects that do move forward will have earned residents? support.
