Small business owners in Brentwood, Missouri, have taken legal action against the city to prevent the seizure of their properties through eminent domain for a massive $436 million redevelopment project.
At a Glance
- Brentwood officials declared a stretch of Manchester Road “blighted” to justify using eminent domain for a $436 million redevelopment project
- Business owners argue the blight designation is based on minor issues like paint cracks and grass height, not actual unsafe conditions
- The lawsuit challenges the city’s broad interpretation of “blight,” which could affect approximately 75 properties including well-maintained businesses
- The Institute for Justice is representing the property owners, arguing that Missouri’s blight laws are being exploited
- The redevelopment plan includes hotel, office, and residential spaces with developer Halo Real Estate Ventures
Property Rights Under Threat
Business owners along Manchester Road in Brentwood, Missouri, have filed a lawsuit challenging the city’s effort to designate their properties as “blighted” – a move that would clear the way for the municipality to use eminent domain powers.
The contested area encompasses approximately 75 properties, many of which are functioning businesses that owners claim are well-maintained and valuable contributors to the local economy. At the center of the $436 million redevelopment dispute are businesses including Convergence Dance and Body Center and Feather Craft Fly Fishing.
The city’s blight designation appears strategically designed to circumvent Missouri state laws that restrict the use of eminent domain solely for economic development purposes. By declaring the area blighted, officials can claim the takings serve a public purpose – a requirement for eminent domain use.
This legal maneuver has alarmed property rights advocates who see it as an exploitation of loopholes in state eminent domain protections enacted after the controversial 2005 Supreme Court Kelo v. New London decision.
Questionable “Blight” Standards
Property owners contend that the city’s evidence of “blight” consists of trivial issues that hardly justify government seizure of private property. One business owner revealed in court that his property was cited for a single code violation related to grass height – hardly the dangerous or unsanitary conditions that eminent domain laws were designed to address. Rather than addressing legitimate public health concerns, critics argue the blight designation merely serves as a pretext for transferring private property to developers.
“It was the height of the grass because the lawncare company missed it one week. We remedied it immediately. I actually cut it personally with my lawn mower,” said Anthony George.
The city’s blight study also pointed to relatively minor aesthetic issues such as chipping paint and damaged parking lots. During court proceedings, attorneys mentioned the area’s flooding history, though business owners maintain their properties remain fully functional and safe. The Institute for Justice, representing the plaintiffs, argues that Missouri’s broad definition of blight essentially allows municipalities to seize nearly any property they desire for redevelopment purposes.
Business Owners Fight Back
The four-day trial has brought to light the human impact of the city’s redevelopment ambitions. Many business owners have invested significant time and resources into their properties and have strong ties to the Brentwood community. They argue that the city is unfairly targeting their properties to benefit private developers who stand to profit from the massive redevelopment project that would include hotels, office space, and residential units.
“We love being in Brentwood. We love working in Brentwood. We love being a part of the business community in Brentwood,” said Carter Maier.
Adding to the controversy, the redevelopment project has already changed developers once, with Halo Real Estate Ventures taking over from Green Street, which reportedly faced financial and legal challenges. This developer shuffling has further fueled property owners’ arguments that the city is playing “musical chairs” with their livelihoods and private property rights. The city initially declared the area blighted in 2018 citing flooding concerns, but later approved a new redevelopment agreement requiring a fresh blight designation.
Constitutional Questions at Stake
The case raises fundamental questions about property rights protections under both the Missouri constitution and the U.S. Constitution. Legal experts watching the case note that while the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision allowed property takings for economic development, most states including Missouri subsequently enacted laws to strengthen property owner protections. However, these laws often contain loopholes that municipalities exploit through broad interpretations of blight.
“If that’s allowed to stand as the definition of blight, that basically means the government can take any property using eminent domain solely because it’s a little older or it may need a fresh coat of paint,” said Bobbi Taylor.
As the trial proceeds, the city has thus far declined to comment on the ongoing litigation. Property rights advocates nationwide are closely monitoring the case as its outcome could influence how eminent domain powers are exercised and challenged in other municipalities across the country. For the business owners involved, the stakes couldn’t be higher – they’re fighting not just for buildings, but for their livelihoods and constitutional rights.
