Editorial: Eminent domain belongs to the public

City of Spokane voters have some housecleaning to do with their primary election ballots. The City Council has submitted 11 propositions that, for the most part, tie up some loose ends left when the city charter was redrafted to create a strong mayor and a council president.

The notable exception is Proposition 7, which will strip the Park Board of a power it has had for a century; that of eminent domain – condemnation.

The board cannot itself condemn property for park use, but when negotiations for a land parcel fail it can ask the City Council to do the deed for it. According to the charter, the council “shall” condemn what the park board bids it condemn.

Proposition 7 changes the “shall” to a “may.”

The change is appropriate.

Public sensitivity to what many consider the “taking” of private property has increased as more restrictions, many tied to environmental concerns, have limited the uses of some land. Condemnation itself is not a taking. Landowners are paid for their property, although the landowner may consider the price too low, especially if they had no desire to sell. Period.

A 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed condemnation on behalf of private developers in Connecticut also outraged many, and justifiably so.

Washington’s state Constitution prohibits such abuse, and its safeguards are one of the reasons the Park Board does not see a need for a change to the city charter. The board has not invoked eminent domain for decades, although it came close when it was acquiring land west of the Monroe Street bridge along the south bank of the Spokane River for the Centennial Trail back in 1990. Turns out, the trail will be on the north bank. There’s a lesson there.

Condemnation, it should be noted, was not used in the ill-timed commitment to buy the YMCA property in Riverfront Park.

Given its non-use of condemnation, the board may be overly touchy about the loss of that power, but it does have a legitimate complaint with the council’s failure to bring board members into the charter revision process until Proposition 7 was all but a done deal. Had they been informed, board members might have countered with information regarding their self-review of the board’s own charter and its archaic language.

A one-time vote implementing those changes in conjunction with a Proposition 7-like initiative might have made more sense.

Now, as one proposal among 10 others, Park Board members argue the condemnation issue is not getting the attention it deserves, a criticism well-taken.

But letting an elected City Council decide for itself whether condemnation serves the greater public interest is a good thing. Proposition 7 puts that considerable power in the right hands.