The city of Brentwood, Missouri, is currently facing a notable eminent domain lawsuit involving the designation of a large commercial area along Manchester Road as “blighted.” This designation is central to the city’s $436 million redevelopment plan aimed at revitalizing the area. However, several small businesses and property owners are challenging the city’s use of eminent domain powers, arguing that the blight designation is unfounded and that the city is unlawfully attempting to seize private property to benefit private developers.
Background of the Eminent Domain Lawsuit in Brentwood
Brentwood declared an eight-block area along Manchester Road blighted, a term typically used to describe properties suffering from severe disrepair or public health hazards. This declaration allows the city to legally invoke eminent domain and acquire these properties for redevelopment purposes. The redevelopment plan approved in 2023 includes new office buildings, apartments, a hotel, and retail spaces, with the goal of increasing tax revenue and modernizing the area.
However, many of the properties are occupied by longstanding family-owned businesses that have maintained their premises in good condition. These businesses provide valuable services to the local community and have not received warnings that their properties are unsafe or neglected. The owners argue that the city’s blight designation is a pretext to forcibly remove thriving businesses in favor of more “attractive” new developments.
Parties Involved
- Plaintiffs: Small business owners including the owners of Feather-Craft Fly Fishing, Time for Dinner meal prep, and Convergence Dance and Body Center, represented by the Institute for Justice (IJ).
- Defendants: City of Brentwood officials, members of the Brentwood Board of Aldermen, and the private developer Halo Real Estate Ventures.
Allegations and Legal Claims
The lawsuit challenges the blight designation on several legal grounds:
- The city lacks substantial evidence to justify declaring the Manchester Corridor blighted, as the properties are well-maintained and not in significant disrepair.
- The designation and eminent domain proceedings violate Missouri’s constitutional protections that prohibit taking property solely for private economic development.
- The city’s blight study contains flawed assumptions, including speculation about hypothetical flooding despite a $120 million flood mitigation project already undertaken.
- The true motive behind the eminent domain action is economic development and increased tax revenue, which Missouri law expressly forbids as a sole purpose for property takings.
Legal Context
The backdrop of this lawsuit includes the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, which permitted the use of eminent domain for economic development. In response, Missouri and other states enacted stricter laws requiring takings to be for clear public use, such as roads or schools, and mandating judicial determination of public use irrespective of legislative declarations.
Current Status and Developments
The lawsuit was filed in December 2023 and went to a bench trial in May 2025. The city requested a directed verdict based on insufficient evidence after trial, while plaintiffs opposed. The court’s decision on the matter is awaited, with proposed findings and conclusions of law expected by late August 2025.
In the meantime, the redevelopment project remains a contentious issue, with the original developer Green Street replaced by Halo Real Estate Ventures amid controversies over unpaid taxes and lawsuits.
Impact of the Lawsuit
The lawsuit highlights the tension between municipal redevelopment ambitions and property rights protections. It underscores how governments may misuse broad and vague blight classifications to circumvent legal restrictions on eminent domain, placing small businesses and homeowners at risk of being displaced.
The case is regarded as a test of Missouri’s post-Kelo eminent domain reforms and may set precedent for how strictly such protections are enforced.
Consumer Advice and Recommendations
Property owners and small businesses facing blight designations or eminent domain actions should seek experienced legal counsel immediately to evaluate their rights and available defenses. Documentation of property condition, business viability, and good standing can be critical evidence. Community engagement and public advocacy may also influence redevelopment plans.
Conclusion: Significance and Future Outlook
The eminent domain lawsuit against Brentwood represents a significant battleground over the limits of governmental power in property acquisition for development. The outcome will likely affect how cities balance economic growth with individual property rights, impacting municipal redevelopment policies in Missouri and beyond.
It serves as a broader reminder that eminent domain, while a powerful governmental tool, must be exercised with caution, fairness, and adherence to legal safeguards to prevent unjust displacement of thriving communities.
