Pittsburgh officials voted in December to pursue eminent domain against a troubled senior housing complex, putting a spotlight on a legal tool that allows governments to take private property for public use — and the potentially serious consequences it can have for homeowners.
The Homewood House complex, which was acquired by out-of-state investors, is grappling with multiple problems. These challenges, as reported by Pittsburgh’s NPR News station, WESA, include resident complaints about safety, an ongoing foreclosure by Fannie Mae, and a failed inspection by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). A resolution put forth by the city cited that “poor housing conditions for residents” could result in a possible sheriff’s sale,” which would be part of of an eminent domain move.
However, the resolution “doesn’t by itself allow for eminent domain; the move would still require city officials to file a legal document called a ‘declaration of taking’ and provide payment for the property,” according to WESA’s reporting—a step they have yet to take.
City officials have said that, should they proceed with eminent domain action, their goal is to preserve the housing as affordable and improve it by allowing the building to be run by the city’s housing authority.
“We’re really trying to do three things: … prevent displacement, preserve affordable housing, and protect the property from falling into the hands of another bad actor,” Councilman Khari Mosley, who represents Homewood, told WESA shortly after the resolution was introduced.
But the hard question is—is that realistic?
How eminent domain could be used here
Jeremy Rovinsky, federal prosecutor, and constitutional and real estate property law professor, explains that as the law currently stands, the government has the ability to exercise eminent domain to rescue a falling senior housing complex. There is precedence.
“The Supreme Court case most on-point is Kelo v. City of New London, in which the court ruled that the city of New London (Connecticut) could condemn multiple residential properties against their owners’ wishes, to transfer them to a new private owner for purposes of promoting ‘economic development,’” Rovinsky said. “Although controversial, this case is still good law.”
Under the law, there is a clause calling for “just compensation” or “fair market value of a parcel of property that must be paid to a land owner who has had his or her property taken by the government,” he said.
So, in accordance with this clause, all the government would have to do is pay said fair market value to the owners of the housing complex, and take over ownership.
But according to WESA, the investors are locked in a legal battle over fraud charges and the property is in foreclosure to Fannie Mae. That complicates matters but doesn’t rule out the move of eminent domain entirely.
The ethical and housing implications involved.
As Rovinsky noted, this case is unique because the residents are not the property owners, which adds another layer of complexity to the case.
Stephen Lockard, litigation attorney at J&Y Law notes that while using eminent domain to preserve affordable housing sounds progressive on paper, if it forces out the very residents it’s meant to protect, it becomes ethically fraught.
“For seniors, displacement can be such a destabilizing experience. It raises real questions about whether the ‘public benefit’ comes at too high a human cost,” he said.
What’s more, Lockard said that eminent domain is usually applied to physical infrastructure projects or to eliminate blight.
“You don’t normally see these cases pertain to the takeover of, say, a housing complex. It’s interesting because here, you have the government stepping in to fix financial decay, not physical decay,” he added.
In fact, the use of eminent domain law has sometimes been controversial, as abuses have occurred. A report from a coalition of leading legal advocates against the abuse of eminent domain outlined the 10 most salient instances of government condemnations for private benefit.
“In each instance, the government, often acting in concert with a private development corporation or other private interests, condemned homes or small businesses so they could be transferred to another party for its purely private benefit,” according to The Institute for Justice, which published the paper, “Government Theft: The Top 10 Abuses of Eminent Domain, 1998-2002”
Shane Lucado, founder and CEO of InPerSuit, a legal platform, said the common use of eminent domain, whether for road expansions, utility work, or redeveloping blighted areas, all have a common thread: the property is already being put to a public-facing use.
“This is different. The takings are justified by the structure’s financial solvency rather than by a public necessity for its location. Once the government becomes a property manager instead of a city planner, “public use” becomes much more elastic. That is something courts look at pretty closely,” he said.
Will this set a precedent for preserving affordable housing—or will it create new risks for vulnerable residents?
With that said, local officials have pledged, both to the press and in the resolution, that their goal is to prevent the displacement of residents. (Realtor.com® reached out to Councilman Mosley, but hasn’t heard back at the time of publication.)
Carl Redwood, a local affordable housing advocate who has advised the tenant council at Homewood House, said he thinks the potential use of eminent domain could be beneficial.
“The eminent domain plan and establishing public housing authority control would keep current residents in place,” he said, adding that this is not an isolated case, as there are more than one thousand other units that were owned by the same investors facing foreclosure in Pittsburgh and Allegheny County.
While keeping residents in place is the end goal, according to Lockart, if this becomes precedent, it could create a dangerous standard: cities might start invoking eminent domain not to protect tenants, but to push redevelopment or resolve financial mismanagement.
“Without legal protections in place, this case risks turning a well-intentioned idea into a tool that can be used to displace people whenever the government wants. We’ve seen how well that’s worked out historically,” he said.
Seann Malloy, founder and managing Partner at Malloy Law Offices, noted that, done carefully, this could be a truly meaningful precedent, involving enforceable relocation plans, continuity-of-care protections, and binding affordability covenants post-takeover.
“But it must be emphasized that preserving housing stock cannot be at the expense of housing stability for those who already live there,” he said.
Finally, there is the issue of affordability for seniors on a fixed income, who don’t have the resources to pay for moving expenses or deposits. While eminent domain actions generally involve “just compensation,” how it’s applied across the country in similar situations remains to be seen.
InPerSuit’s Lucado said that laws can allow for an inequitable result, and how the notice is given, how relocation packages or timelines are structured, can be the difference between sympathy and outrage.
“There’s a fine line between preserving and doing what is in the best interest of the tenants,” he said. “Preserving a building does not always preserve affordability. If the state feels they need to step in and use eminent domain, they are now responsible for where those tenants move to and not just the compensation to move.”