American Dream

D.C. Court Is Urged to Force Property Sale

By Debbi Wilgoren
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 12, 2005; Page B04

Quotes:

The District's quest to bring sit-down restaurants and big-box stores to the shopping-starved neighborhoods east of the Anacostia River has entered a new phase -- eminent domain.

The National Capital Revitalization Corp., a publicly chartered economic development firm, is seeking permission in D.C. Superior Court to buy the 1940s-era Skyland Shopping Center and several additional acres of land, even though the owners do not want to sell.

The NCRC wants to replace the rundown strip of shops with a larger, more modern complex that would be anchored by a Target store and include other nationally known retailers and sit-down restaurants, commodities that are almost impossible to find in the District east of Capitol Hill.

The corporation, charged with bringing economic rebirth to struggling parts of the city, has signed deals to buy about five acres of the 18-acre site and is negotiating to purchase nearly two acres more. But owners of other parcels have vowed to fight the NCRC's attempt to take over their land and in some cases have already sued to prevent it.

"We've reached a point where we have to move forward," said NCRC chief executive Anthony Freeman. "We are implementing a city's vision here -- crafted by the residents, the council and the mayor."

District officials and community leaders say a new retail complex would provide a long overdue amenity to those who live in Wards 7 and 8, and would help recapture some of the $400 million those residents are believed to spend shopping in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs each year.

At Skyland, eminent domain "can be used for the good of the entire community," D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) said in a statement yesterday. He said the project will create 300 jobs and $3.3 million annually in new tax revenue.

But the Skyland property owners, who in recent weeks proposed an alternative redevelopment plan that they would control, question whether the Kelo v. New London decision applies to their site.

Their attorneys note that, unlike the Skyland project, the properties to be forcibly taken in New London were 15 homes on 1.5 acres, wholly different than the 90-acre, mixed-use project being proposed. And because the town had not yet chosen a developer, no one private party stood to benefit.