When the City Wants Your Property

Written By: Travis Buhler  |  Posted: Thursday, July 30th, 2015

            It was a quiet and hopefully permanent victory.  On the surface, a mere discussion of what a well developed commercial district surrounding the coming university arena could look like seems harmless - unless those who are discussing it have the name "Redevelopment Authority (RDA)" and have the power from State law to oversee "urban renewal."

   Such was the case when Eau Claire City's RDA committee discussed this proposal during its July meeting at City Hall.  Last year, the owners of County Materials donated their property on Menomonie Street to UW-Eau Claire (UWEC) for a new arena on the site.  Since then, property owners on both sides of Menomonie Street from the Student Transit building to Clairemont Avenue have reported being approached by a UWEC alumni group about purchasing their properties - presumably with the hopes of redeveloping the neighborhood to match the future designs of the arena area.

   Most of the property owners - almost all of them business properties - did not want to sell for many reasons.  Then word got out that the RDA committee was to discuss the creation of a redevelopment district enveloping the area.

   Many of the property owners on Menomonie Street showed up at the meeting to voice their disapproval over the City having any sort of plans for their private properties.  According to one of the business owners, the discussion after the public comments was brief and no decision was made.  It is unclear who brought the idea to the attention of the City.  Perhaps it was not the alumni group, but rather from someone within City Hall.  There have been media reports since the arena announcement about the Menomonie Street area being one of the City's future redevelopment areas.

   While lovers of the people's right to enjoy their property are pleased that their voices were heard, it is too soon to declare victory just yet.  The City Council is obsessed with economic development - even to the point of forcing property owners to conform to their wishful thinking.  Their dreams can be made realities through making use of and sometimes twisting State statutes regarding urban renewal. 

   The first approach the City could take is to declare the properties blighted.  None of the properties are, but that has not stopped the City from making that decision before.  Many of the properties near the future Confluence Project that were declared blighted were not.  And the effects of such a declaration can impact the owners beyond just the fear of the City taking their properties.

   The City can also consider the area "deteriorating."  While now it does not look so, if a flashy new arena shows up next to 1970's era buildings it would not take much to convince an ignorant public that the area around the arena is deteriorating and should be forced to upgrade to the surrounding area.

   Perhaps the forced taking of properties through eminent domain will not be used to stop "blight" or "deterioration," but if street expansion or other "necessary" projects are planned, then a couple places could be forced to sell in the name of utility rather than redevelopment. 

   The City may not allow businesses to improve their structures unless they upgrade their existing properties to the special mandates of a new redevelopment district.  Another weapon the City could use is to place extra scrutiny on the properties to make sure they are conforming to the thousands of City and State statutes and regulations - thus making it miserable and costly to operate in such an area.

   And unfortunately, oftentimes the public is behind such actions.  Blame it on ignorance, but many residents and visitors may drive through such an area and not find the buildings pleasing to their sight.  They would love to see more modern buildings there - especially if a new arena is built just across the street.  Grand plans released to the media showing beautiful lush greenery surrounding multi-storied, mixed-use brick buildings that line up next to wide sidewalks filled with masses of sports fans please the weak eyes of a public that has forgotten why our nation's founders wrote the fourth and fifth amendments.

   But there are smarter supporters of such "progress" in their camp.  In the name of growing the economy, many argue that it is necessary for the community that businesses be forced from one area to a more conforming area.

   Regardless of whether or not this is legal, to force someone to sell or even conform their property is bad enough when it is for some public utility.  Who can argue that it is not stealing when it is sold to another business owner in the name of redevelopment?  I consider both to be stealing.  It does not matter if the economy improves because of such actions.  It is not for anyone - including the City - to redevelop someone else's property. They were there first.

   If you find the current buildings along Menomonie Street ugly, then you need to readjust your mind to what is beautiful.  Many of these businesses have endured for decades - that is beautiful.  Many of them will be inherited by the owners' children - that is beautiful.  These businesses are able to pay their employees and themselves and spend that money throughout the community - that is beautiful.  Customers can enjoy new tires, ice cream, car seat covers, auto body work, fast printing services, a good deal on a used item, and much more - that is beautiful.

   I don't know why our Declaration of Independence replaced the right to property with "pursuit of happiness."  But being able to own property without the fear of someone taking it from you helps that pursuit of happiness - and that is beautiful.

   Travis Buhler is the Managing Editor of the US Journal and the Eau Claire Journal and a regular Tuesday contributor to the Today morning show.  Email: .