The Other Side of Kelo

Now that we’re settled in our Brooklyn home, after much inconven -ience, it’s time to breathe a sigh of relief and look beyond the streets of New York to see what’s happening in other locales. At this time of year, even though it should be colder in New York than it is, let’s turn south for the basking warmth of Florida. For the last week or so, the media has paid close attention to the case of Briny Breezes, Florida, a coastal town along the eastern coast between Palm Beach and Miami. Unlike the posh and polished multimillion-dollar homes that line this part of the world, sandwiched in between them is this 43-acre burg comprised entirely of trailer homes. The residents have been confronted with an intriguing offer from Ocean Land Investments, a Boca Raton-based development company: $510 million for the whole tract, or about $1 million to each and every owner. After much contemplation, the community, run like a corporation where each owner sits on the board and gets to vote on such matter, decided to sell to the developer by a margin of 80% to 20%, with a 97% turnout. Much still needs to be resolved, including the rezoning that the developer will need to install the condos, hotel and marina it envisions for the plot. Nonetheless, the people have spoken.

This example got me to thinking about how with all the uproar over the Kelo decision, why wasn’t there more of an uprising over this blatant attempt to clear residents out of a perfectly-acceptable community and replace it with a use that would generate significant revenue for a developer, and tax ratables for the municipality? Was it the “$1 million per owner” catchphrase? Was it the fact that the municipality was not involved in the acquisition process? I suppose this second reason largely explains it – people were so enraged over Kelo because they thought the government was stepping into a process where it didn’t belong. The City of New London, in the opponents’ eyes, overstepped its authority in trying to make a development happen.

But what if there isn’t a corporate board to approach when a developer seeks to purchase a large parcel in an already-developed community? What if majority does not rule, but instead the decision of one lone holdout (or twenty percent worth of holdouts) who do not want the inconvenience of moving, even if the developer offers a tempting price for their property? What if the majority of the people who own the subject property do want to sell, but cannot because of these others? What if the majority of the city’s residents want the new development to enhance its attractiveness and generate more tax revenue to improve city services and infrastructure? Is the will of the few how the American system ought to work?

This is all not to say that I don’t see the potential for abuses in allowing others to “strong-arm” people who don’t want to move when they are subject to the will of market forces in the development of land. But I just have to question the quality of the debate when media outlets and advocates alike fail to see the parallels between a Kelo and the Briny Breezes example. To truly come to a position where the issues are fully discussed and understood, the facts must give way to rhetoric. The land use process is designed to look after property owners, but only within the limits of the communities’ needs. That’s why we have zoning, and other land use regulations to provide some checks and balances over what can and cannot be done with property. It’s not a perfect system, but it shouldn’t be governed by double standards. If this were allowed, the value of what we all do to keep our communities vital and healthy would be eviscerated.