What on earth does this have to do with Kelo?
In many ways this is the reverse Kelo. Using public power to block private development in the public interest, not sell to private developers.
Kelo or "reverse Kelo," this case is still a perversion of the original intent of eminent domain. The concept was put in place so that government entities could take property -- subject to paying fair compensation -- for the purpose of building things that benefit all citizens, things such as roads, bridges, firehouses, schools, or government buildings.
In Kelo, the concept was perverted into taking private property and immediately turning it over to a private, for-profit entity. The rationale was that the public purpose served was increasing the tax base, thereby [supposedly] reducing the tax burden on everyone.
In this case, if I understand it correctly, the purpose of the taking is to allow those people who live in the trailer park to continue to live in the trailer park. How does that benefit anyone who does NOT live in the trailer park? What public purpose,
serving the entire populace of the jurisdiction, is served?
Further, what -- exactly -- is the legal status of the housing authority? I'm not in California and I recognize that things are likely different in each state. I once worked for a public housing authority in my state. The authority was a
quasi-government entity. It was, essentially, a private, not-for-profit entity that was created pursuant to a state statute and that received funding from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). I worked in the agency's planning department, and I'm pretty certain that we did not have power of eminent domain.
In the current case, the county government is "partnering" with the housing authority. In short, they are doing exactly what was done in Kelo -- the government is using eminent domain to grab private property, and then the government entity will immediately turn the property over to a non- (or quasi-) government entity. The end result will be to supposedly benefit 400 people (or was it families -- maybe 600 people, tops?). The population of Santa Clara County, according to the U.S. census, is 1,918,044 as of July of 2015. So we're talking about maybe 600 people out of 2 million people. That's not my idea of serving a public purpose. None of the other county residents are going to derive any benefit or use out of the property. They won't be able to walk into any of the trailers, sit down, and watch the ball game. To them, it will be private property.
Sorry, call it "reverse" Kelo if you wish, I don't see any fundamental difference.
BTW, here's what the Fort Trumbull neighborhood (the neighborhood over which
Kelo was fought) looks like today:
