Is it tough to balance those demands – redevelopment, which would be in favor of using eminent domain to revitalize an area as the new Supreme Court ruling deemed legal, and affordable housing development, which would certainly oppose it?
Oh it definitely is. The whole notion of taking someone’s property by involuntary means is very loaded, controversial, and can lead to lawsuits. Even if they are provided replacement housing or land, the initial reaction is that of destabilizing those people personally. That’s why we avoid using it in deference of voluntary acquisition. Our agency has the authority to use it, but we never have.

Why haven’t you used eminent domain?
You’d rather put someone on probation than in jail, and that’s the same concept with eminent domain. We’d use it only as a last resort, because it leaves a really sour taste in people’s mouths. Here in Los Angeles, people still remember when families were displaced to build Dodger Stadium. Instead, we try to work with people to voluntarily give up their homes or property. It may take a year or two longer if we’re undertaking projects for open space or housing but getting people to volunteer to give up their property always seems to be better for everyone involved. Because without fail, the issues at hand shift when eminent domain is invoked.

What do you mean the issues shift when eminent domain becomes involved?
 Instead of being about the proposed development, the issue shifts to a discussion of property rights. Regardless of the compensation being offered to those being replaced, everything else becomes secondary to the issue of people’s rights to their own private land. You can see how it can become very heated.

So when would you say eminent domain is okay to use?
The public has a very strong notion of what’s right and what’s wrong, and in order to use eminent domain, the public entity needs to align itself with the notion of what’s right. What I mean is they need to form a partnership and get the public on board for the project. A good example is LAUSD. They’re using eminent domain right now to build schools. They’re taking hundreds, I don’t know the numbers, but maybe even thousands of homes, but they’re doing it because the public has expressed a need for new schools. So there are still negative consequences – people are still having their homes replaced – but the overall public sentiment is that this is a good thing overall because we need more schools. That’s very different than taking someone’s home and replacing it with a shopping center.

That leads to the Supreme Court decision, where economic rejuvenation was viewed as in the public’s best interest. Were you surprised by the Supreme Court’s decision?
What I was surprised at was the suit that was taken to the Supreme Court. It was a little bit of the extreme I thought. What I mean, is that I saw the visual images of that community in Connecticut [involved in the case], and those homes didn’t look like blight if they were in our community. Plus, the cases that have made news like this have all dealt with a business interest. LAUSD has been using eminent domain a lot, but you don’t hear about it because the project is in the public’s best interest, and that’s how it should be used.

Do you think the Supreme Court ruling has created a misunderstanding of what eminent domain really means?
I do, because again, the cases you hear about all deal with the economic revitalization side of it so some people think that’s all eminent domain is. So the Supreme Court case has created quite a backlash as politicians try to curb its use.

What kind of a backlash?
 Because it’s so highly charged, there’s a major push to limit how and where eminent domain can be used. In some ways, that’s okay, but it could hurt public agencies like ours. I’m concerned about it going too far.

How could the backlash against eminent domain go too far?
Again, it’s always a last resort, but it is a tool that can be useful to complete projects that are in the public’s best interest. If the backlash leads to legislation on Capitol Hill limiting eminent domain more than it was before the Supreme Court case that could hurt the ability of agencies like ours to complete projects.

Is the issue coming to a head for any other reasons?
Here on the West Coast, a lot of communities are entering another stage of their lifecycle. On the East Coast, cities are much older so many have already been through a revitalization period where eminent domain might have come into play. But here, many cities are going through that stage now. Think about how many “old towns” versus “downtowns” are popping up in western cities. That could lead to some highly controversial debates over eminent domain.

So do you think the use of eminent domain for economic revitalization will be more widespread?
Not if that means misusing it. Bottom line, you can buy the most expensive tool, but if you misuse it, it’s not going to work. I think that’s how the public looks at eminent domain: it’s not the tool that needs to be addressed, but how the tool is used.