It's Not "Eminent Domain," But Is It Legal?

Virginia Postrel reports:

Southern Methodist University (where Prof. Postrel teaches) is the front-runner for the GW Bush presidential library, much to the chagrin of short-sighted faculty who don't like the president. In fact, a presidential library would be a huge research coup for the school, which is not exactly Stanford (which refused, foolishly IMHO, the Reagan library). The proximity to the Clinton Library in Little Rock would be a great help to scholars of the period.

Now comes word in the New York Sun that SMU is in trouble over trying to use eminent domain to obtain the library land. The headline on Meghan Clyne's article, which reflects the text, is "Lawsuit Over Eminent Domain Could Snarl Bush Library Plans." There is indeed a lawsuit, and it could indeed snarl those plans. But it has nothing to do with eminent domain. Clyne is missing a rather important public-private distinction.

What SMU did was buy up condos in a complex adjacent to the university. Over time, the university came to control the board. Disgruntled owners, some of whom are suing, alleged that the SMU-controlled board deliberately let the place run down so that owners would sell and give the university further control. (My memory of Dallas Morning News coverage is a little hazy, but I believe general expansion, not a presidential library, was the original reason for the university's alleged tactics.)

You haven't heard the last of this one.