St. Louis Suburb Takes First Step Towards Dispossessing Small Businesses

Unlike the original urban renewal of the 50s, 60s and 70s, which was federally subsidized through the Housing Acts of 1949 and 1954 to revitalize inner cities gutted by New Deal suburban sprawl, that excluded minorities through redlining and restrictive covenants, and railroaded in through the SCOTUS decision in Parker v. Berman, Urban Renewal 2.0 is confined to local “revitalization” schemes that while not receiving direct federal assistance most of the time, have the same objective of demolishing historic working class neighborhoods with lower income residents and replacing them with housing and accommodations suitable for more affluent residents (or multinational corporations). This was made much easier by the Supreme Court’s extremely liberal interpretation of the 5th amendment takings clause in Kelo v. City of New London (a high profile case litigated by IJ). The new expanded scope of “public benefit” eminent domain puts everyone’s home or business up for grabs but those of fewer means are much more likely to find themselves in the cross-hairs.

While Urban renewal is no longer congressionally funded its scourge continues to afflict renters, homeowners and small businesses across the country. The first step municipalities take towards razing their homes and livelihoods is designating their communities as blighted, opening them up to condemnation proceedings under Berman v. Parker. The St. Louis Suburb of Brentwood took this first step this year against several small businesses and a commercial landlord in three different locations in two July meetings among the board of Alderman. On July 5th the board deliberated on a new redevelopment plan for the Manchester Corridor, the designated Highway Commercial district in which the businesses are located. At the next meeting, about two weeks later, they adopted their 2023 redevelopment plan for the Manchester Corridor based on the concurrent blight study. In the prior month, the board had adopted an ordinance that changed the definition of blight and lengthened the period for considering redevelopment plans from 90 days to 5 years. The definition of blighted area was changed to mean:

(a) an area which, by reason of the predominance of insanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site improvements, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of such factors, retards the provision of housing accommodations or constitutes an economic or social liability or a menace to the public health, safety, or welfare in its present condition and use, or (b) such other definition as may be required by Missouri law in connection with the approval of a Development Plan.f

The extension for considering redevelopment request for proposal allowed the board to keep the one for the Manchester Corridor, that had been presented by the Brentwood Redevelopment Corporation in April of 2022, alive and the open ended “blighted area” definition allowed them target properties that are up to code but don't maximize tax revenue for their coffers. This motive for designating these properties as blighted was readily apparent before the July 17th meeting because private developer Green Street had responded to the Brentwood Redevelopment Corporation’s request for proposal in June of 2022, which considered “the use of eminent domain if needed for any non-single-family homes, real estate tax abatement, an area-wide Community Improvement District (CID), a Transportation Development District (TDD), the use of New Market Tax Credits (NMTC), and Chapter 100 Bonds to abate sales tax on construction materials.” The businesses within this Manchester corridor were so far out of the loop on the decisions the board of aldermen were making for them that they were not even notified that their road was designated the Manchester Corridor Commercial Zoning District back in April of 2019 much less any of the more monumental decisions and deals made afterward violating their due process rights.

The 2023 blight study in question concludes “the Area shows a predominance of insanitary or unsafe conditions” from 5 unnamed properties, out of 75 total properties, exhibiting unsanitary and unsafe conditions. The study assumes “the presence of hazardous chemicals and materials is likely to exist in many of these properties” without evidence but only on the basis that twenty properties were built before 1960 and 29 before 1970 with only three properties less than 35 years old. The study even uses minor cosmetic defects such as “the need for paint, window repair, damaged trash holding facilities, deteriorating signage, rotting or missing facias or soffits, damaged or deteriorated loading areas or doors, and cracking and/or pot-holed parking lots” as well as “dilapidation of outbuildings or other accessory structures'' as justification for a blight designation. The study also used the risk of a 500 year flood as part of their flimsy basis for a blight designation. However, the biased study reveals its true motive when it notes that “the structures have little attractiveness for uses other than their current ones” and “the age of the buildings makes most of them economically and functionally obsolete.” This makes it apparent that the threat of eminent domain hangs over these properties not because of neglect but because the city wants to give them to businesses that will use them in a manner that brings in higher tax revenues. After the Kelo decision, Missouri was one of 44 states that reformed their condemnation laws to make forced property transfers from private homeowners and businesses to private developers working on behalf of private companies (like Pfizer) extremely difficult if not impossible. Thus, a blight designation from a biased pseudo scientific study would allow them to condemn the existing properties under the Berman precedent.