Commentary: The Frustrations of Urban Renewal

Change is never easy, especially when it comes to revitalizing older, decaying urban areas. A case in point is happening right here in Topeka.
A developer wants to transform an area near the Washburn University campus into a new, reinvigorated shopping center and apartment complex. I drive right by the area that the developer wants to work on. It's primarily an old collection of older buildings either run down and vacant or occupied by small businesses. If anywhere is in need of "urban renewal", then this is the place. It is example of what people think of when they mockingly refer to Topeka as "To-puke-a".

Most of the property owners in the stretch under consideration have already agreed to sell to the developer. However, two holdouts remain. The most publicized holdout is the owner of a small bike shop. He is refusing to sell for one simple reason: he knows that his property is worth something to the developer, and he's trying to get as much as he can out of the deal. Let me say clearly that I have no ill will towards the man for wishing to profit from the sale of his property, and while it makes sense that he should profit, some of his reported asking prices border on astronomical, such as $1.8 million, which is 18 times the value of the location.
The owner claims that he wishes to keep his business open. His actions, however, seem to belie those claims. If he really wanted to keep his business, then he could be given three times his property's worth, which would easily allow him to start over in a new location near the university and still have plenty of money to spare. Or he could negotiate a deal to have his business be given space in the new project. Yet he continues to demand much greater sums.
I am disappointed in this situation. I'm disappointed that this owner seems concerned solely with his own well-being and makes seemingly unrealistic demands upon the developer. These demands have hindered the progress of a development that will wind up helping to revitalize a portion of central Topeka. Now, I'm not at all suggesting that this many shouldn't be allowed to sell for two or even three times the worth for his property, but I'm disappointed that his asking price is so dramatically high.
I'm equally disappointed, though, in the developers, who are calling for the use of eminent domain to force the owner to sell his property. To do so would be to abuse governmental power and to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution. I don't care what the Supreme Court has said. I think it was wrong to say that it was okay for the government to seize land for economic development purposes. Eminent domain should be reserved for situations involving the construction of governmental facilities for public use (such as roads and bridges), and even then its use should be as limited as possible. Governmental intervention is not the solution here.
The solution to this problem lies with the two parties. Hopefully, the owner of the bike shop and the developer will be able to work out a deal that will allow the owner to make a good profit off of it (which is fine with me) while still keeping the cost of the development from becoming prohibitive. I urge them both to do so because this development will do much to help the heart of Topeka begin to come alive again.