A U.S. Supreme Court ruling that expands the right of cities to condemn private property for economic purposes will have limited immediate effect in Colorado, several experts said Thursday.
Ruling on a case from Connecticut, the court Thursday gave new federal powers to municipalities that want to seize homes and businesses to increase tax revenues or create jobs. Earlier federal court rulings had restricted such condemnations to properties in blighted neighborhoods.
Colorado and some other states have laws that allow condemnation of property for redevelopment by private businesses only in cases of economic blight. Those laws remain intact despite the decision, experts on eminent domain in Colorado said.
“The ruling doesn’t really affect Colorado. The state already provides more protection for a private-property owner through its constitutional laws than is provided through the federal constitution,” said Don Ostrander, who represents cities in eminent domain cases.
That could change if Colorado courts side with cities in future condemnation battles, he said.
Reaction from local economic development officials ranged from neutral to positive, while critics of cities’ use of eminent domain powers said they were dismayed by the ruling.
“This means you no longer own your home,” said Tom Wambolt, who fought Arvada’s attempt to condemn a lake to build a Wal-Mart. “You’re only renting it until the next developer comes along and wants to take it.”
Last year, as condemnation battles drew angry protests in several metro cities, legislators passed a law that allows condemnation only in blighted areas.
The legislation was a compromise. Its backers wanted an outright ban of any condemnation benefiting a private business.
Those critics of eminent domain said Thursday that the Supreme Court ruling undermines efforts to control cities they say are abusing their powers.
“It’s a dark day for home and small-business owners in America,” said Steven Anderson, an attorney for the Institute for Justice in Washington, D.C. “This undermines the rights of all Americans who own property, except those who are politically connected.”
Colorado’s eminent-domain law is too vague in its definition of blight, so virtually any property can earn the designation, Anderson said. Thursday’s ruling will spark new battles over eminent domain because it will embolden cities, he said.
Wambolt said he and others will attempt to strengthen the Colorado law through a ballot initiative or new legislation.
“I was hoping the property owners would get some protection (from the Supreme Court),” Wambolt said. “But now at least we know where we stand and what we have to do to fight it.”
In Arvada, where the city lost its battle to condemn property for Wal-Mart, the ruling was welcomed.
“This is really good news for economic development for cities,” said Maureen Phair, redevelopment manager for the Arvada Urban Renewal Authority. “It helps cities, it helps residents, it helps businesses, and it helps the communities.”
Redevelopment of the Fitzsimons medical campus in Aurora and valuable retail space near the convention center in downtown Denver could be sped up with condemnation, but lawyers for both cities said Thursday that the ruling won’t change their approach to eminent domain issues, which they described as conservative.
“The Colorado legislature was so active in 2003 and 2004 (on eminent domain) that that we have a lot of requirements at the state level,” Aurora City Attorney Charlie Richardson said. “The fact there’s no longer a federal prohibition to condemnation for economic redevelopment doesn’t change much here.”
Denver City Attorney Cole Finegan doubts the ruling will have much effect in Denver.
“This is an enormous case that everyone involved in this issue was watching,” Finegan said. “But I don’t know if it will have an immediate impact in Denver.
“The Hickenlooper administration is extremely conservative in condemnation.”
Staff writer Greg Griffin can be reached at 303-820-1241 or ggriffin@denverpost.com.
