## Facts

- The City of Clayton approved a redevelopment plan for a one-block downtown area after receiving a single proposal from Centene Plaza Redevelopment Corporation, a redevelopment corporation formed for the project.
- The City retained a planning firm to assess whether the area qualified as “blighted” under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 353.020; the firm concluded it did.
- The Clayton Board of Aldermen enacted an ordinance declaring the area blighted and approving the redevelopment plan, citing age, obsolescence, outmoded design, and some physical deterioration.
- Property owners within the area, including Mint Properties, refused to sell their parcels to Centene.
- Centene filed condemnation actions seeking to take the properties through eminent domain based on the City’s blight declaration and redevelopment approval.
- The circuit court entered an order of condemnation for Centene, and the property owners appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the City’s determination that the redevelopment area was a “blighted area” under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 353.020 was supported by substantial evidence, allowing condemnation under Chapter 353.

## Decision

- The Missouri Supreme Court (en banc) reversed the condemnation judgment.
- The Court held the City’s blight finding was not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
- Because the statutory predicate for Chapter 353 condemnation was not established, Centene could not condemn Mint’s properties.

## Legal Principles

- A redevelopment corporation may condemn property under Chapter 353 only if the area qualifies as “blighted” as defined by Mo. Rev. Stat. § 353.020.
- Section 353.020 requires proof that, due to enumerated conditions (e.g., age, obsolescence, outmoded design, deterioration), the area “in its present condition and use” has become an economic or social liability or a menace to public health, safety, morals, or welfare.
- A municipal blight determination is a legislative act entitled to deference, but it remains subject to judicial review and must be supported by substantial evidence; deference does not eliminate meaningful review.
- Evidence that property is underutilized, outdated relative to current market preferences, or capable of generating greater tax revenue does not by itself satisfy the statutory requirement of an economic or social liability or a menace.

## Conclusion

The court rejected condemnation premised on a blight designation supported primarily by comparative economic benefits of redevelopment rather than record evidence that the area, as currently used, constituted an economic or social liability or a menace within the meaning of § 353.020.


Centene Plaza Redevelopment Corp. v. Mint Props., 225 S.W.3d 431 (Mo. 2007)