Take and Give
Continued...
As in Baltimore’s Middle East neighborhood that Kelly describes, the collective action of Dudley residents to insist on involvement at multiple stages of redevelopment planning has resulted in a better outcome for the neighborhood and the city. However, it is not clear that improved outcomes would follow from merely giving property owners approval rights. DSNI’s Louie commented that, in response to the group’s community process, residents “have come to expect input in planning decisions” and have accumulated considerable knowledge and experience regarding the criteria by which development proposals should be evaluated.
In the late 1990s, the BHA also used eminent domain for positive change in the Dudley neighborhood. Historically, public-housing development has resulted in widespread displacement of residents and businesses, particularly in communities of color. In contrast, through its revitalization of Orchard Park, a distressed housing project, and its surroundings, the BHA used its eminent-domain power to further restore the community.
Originally constructed in the 1940s, Orchard Park was severely deteriorated and functionally obsolete prior to its redevelopment. Many of the land parcels in its immediate area had been vacant for two decades. Rather than simply renovating or replacing its existing housing, the BHA sought to restore the wider area by acquiring dozens of vacant sites and combining them into several large development parcels. While the BHA was able to purchase some parcels, eminent domain enabled the agency to acquire lots for whom no owner could be found, as well as lots that had long been held vacant by owners hoping to capitalize on rising land values.
In acquiring this land, the BHA was able to achieve two separate but related goals: facilitating creation of more affordable housing and overcoming the negative impact of vacant and abandoned properties on the new housing and the community. Without the use of eminent domain, it would have been impossible to create parcels large enough for housing development. To date, more than 70 units of affordable housing have been built on these formerly vacant parcels.
Although a public agency, rather than a community organization, sponsored the Orchard Park redevelopment, resident participation was integral to the process. Thanks to strong leadership and organization, the Orchard Park Residents Association (OPRA) was instrumental in winning funds from HUD under its HOPE VI program and participated in selection of developers for the project. OPRA also insisted on co-ownership of the new housing with developers. A tenant advisory board participated in housing design and planning. According to Deborah Goddard, BHA’s former HOPE VI director and currently chief legal counsel for the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development, even before securing HOPE VI funds, the BHA had been working for several years with OPRA in planning for the comprehensive modernization of Orchard Park.
The BHA’s use of eminent domain proved remarkably uncontroversial, given the Dudley community’s past willingness to block unwelcome city-driven redevelopment. Goddard attributes the positive response to the fact that the proposed takings were “grounded in a very tangible revitalization effort” that was “completely and easily understood by a lay person watching something going on in the neighborhood.” Also, Goddard observed, because the takings were limited to vacant land in the immediate vicinity of the ongoing HOPE VI project, “there was no sense that we were overreaching in terms of the amount of land or the location of the land.”
While public-housing residents’ input was essential to shaping the Orchard Park plans, the BHA also reached out to the wider community to assure that residents understood its methods and objectives. As a result of this transparency, public comments at the Boston Redevelopment Authority hearing approving the proposed takings were mostly favorable. Public input also influenced and improved the final development plan.
The eminent-domain takings by DSNI and the BHA share several characteristics. Each took only vacant land or unoccupied buildings, with zero displacement of residents or businesses. The resulting uses directly and visibly benefited the community. Particularly in the case of DSNI, decision making was informed by extensive community participation, with clear articulation of assets, needs, and priorities. Both programs were designed to be consistent with a strategic plan developed through grass-roots participation with the help of professional consultants. These characteristics describe the ideal taking: one that clearly benefits the affected community, while imposing no material burden on residents or businesses.
Roberta L. Rubin teaches courses on housing policy and housing law at Tufts University and Northeastern University Law School, and practices law (specializing in affordable housing and community development) at Klein Hornig, LLP in Boston, Massachusetts.

National Housing Institute
There are no comments on this article yet. Start the discussion below.
LOGIN register new account