The fact is, the U.S. Supreme Court held the cities could use eminent domain for redevelopment of blighted properties over 50 years ago (in 1954 to be exact) in the landmark case Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26. What constitutes blight has been the subject of quite a bit of dispute over the last half century, and many cities have taken what many would argue is substantial liberty in defining blight – to the point where often perfectly serviceable, and even relatively recently constructed, buildings have been taken by eminent domain under the guise of blight.

In Kelo, the Court took the Berman decision a huge step further, holding that it is unnecessary for a City to even bother with finding blight before using eminent domain for redevelopment. Thus, the significance of Kelo is not that the Court held eminent domain could be used for redevelopment – that has already been the law for over a half century – but that eminent domain could be used for redevelopment without blight.’

The reality is, Kelo has little legal significance in California because California already has statutory law which requires a finding of blight before eminent domain may be used for redevelopment. The Kelo decision has had significant practical significance in California, however, for the mere fact that it has opened people’s eyes to the ever expanding use of eminent domain, which in turn has resulted in a public backlash which now threatens the government’s ability to use eminent domain even for legitimate public uses.