Missouri Supreme Court Rules Against Developer & Municipality in Takings Case
My friend Antonio French at PubDef has the scoop on the court’s ruling on the Centene Corporation in Clayton Missouri. At issue was Missouri’s definition of “blighted;”
“that portion of the city within which the legislative authority of such city determines that by reason of age, obsolescence, inadequate or outmoded design or physical deterioration have become economic and social liabilities, and that such conditions are conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, crime or inability to pay reasonable taxes.”Â
While the crux of the Kelo decision related to economic development to justify the taking of property the “and social liabilities” phrasing in Missouri law seems to have created a road block to those justifying taking functioning property in the high-value City of Clayton, the county seat of St. Louis County.
One judge, concurring with the decision but disagreeing with some points of the main decision had this to say about blight:
The difficulty is that, although the PGAV report quotes the language from section 353.020(2) defining “blight” and, thus, its authors seem to have been aware that social liability is part of the analysis, the entirety of the conclusion, as well as the relevant discussion relating to the specific factors analyzed, focuses on economic liability. While Centene suggests that the absence of the term “social liability” may just have been an oversight, the level of detail and attention given to every other aspect of the statutory definition of “blight” makes the suggestion that a finding of social liability was accidentally omitted and should be “read into” the report rather implausible.
I intend to take a detailed look at this case in the near future. In the meantime, here is the court’s summary ruling.
Last month I lost a business colleague, a classmate and close personal friend (see 
