Link Looks like it might not be so easy to take away private property for commercial development after all. Hopefully all states pass such laws. States Mobilizing Against Property Ruling By MAURA KELLY LANNAN, Associated Press Writer 44 minutes ago CHICAGO - Alarmed by the prospect of local governments seizing homes and turning the property over to developers, lawmakers in at least half the states are rushing to blunt last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling expanding the power of eminent domain. ADVERTISEMENT In Texas and California, legislators have proposed constitutional amendments to bar government from taking private property for economic development. Politicians in Alabama, South Dakota and Virginia likewise hope to curtail government's ability to condemn land. Even in states like Illinois — one of at least eight that already forbid eminent domain for economic development unless the purpose is to eliminate blight — lawmakers are proposing to make it even tougher to use the procedure. "People I've never heard from before came out of the woodwork and were just so agitated," said Illinois state Sen. Susan Garrett, a Democrat. "People feel that it's a threat to their personal property, and that has hit a chord." The Institute for Justice, which represented homeowners in the Connecticut case that was decided by the Supreme Court, said at least 25 states are considering changes to eminent domain laws. The Constitution says governments cannot take private property for public use without "just compensation." Governments have traditionally used their eminent domain authority to build roads, reservoirs and other public projects. But for decades, the court has been expanding the definition of public use, allowing cities to employ eminent domain to eliminate blight. In June, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that New London, Conn., had the authority to take homes for a private development project. But in its ruling, the court noted that states are free to ban that practice — an invitation lawmakers are accepting in response to a flood of e-mails, phone calls and letters from anxious constituents. "The Supreme Court's decision told homeowners and business owners everywhere that there's now a big `Up for Grabs' sign on their front lawn," said Dana Berliner, an attorney with the Institute for Justice. "Before this, people just didn't realize that they could lose their home or their family's business because some other person would pay more taxes on the same land. People are unbelievably upset." Don Borut, executive director of the National League of Cities, which backed New London in its appeal to the high court, said government's eminent domain power is important for revitalizing neighborhoods. He said any changes to state law should be done after careful reflection. "There's a rush to respond to the emotional impact. Our view is, step back, let's look at the issue in the broadest sense and if there are changes that are reflected upon, that's appropriate," he said. In Alabama, Republican Gov. Bob Riley is drawing up a bill that would prohibit city and county governments from using eminent domain to take property for retail, office or residential development. It would still allow property to be taken for industrial development, such as new factories, and for roads and schools. In Connecticut, politicians want to slap a moratorium on the use of eminent domain by municipalities until the Legislature can act. One critic of the ruling has suggested local officials take over Supreme Court Justice David Souter's New Hampshire farmhouse and turn it into a hotel. Souter voted with the majority in the Connecticut case. Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington already forbid the taking of private property for economic development except to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly on the question. Illinois state Sen. Steve Rauschenberger, a Republican who is considering a run for governor, said the state's blight laws need to be more restrictive. "The statutory definition of blight in Illinois is broader than the Mississippi River at its mouth," he said. "They have taken everything from underdeveloped lakefront property to open green-grass farmfields as being defined as blighted." Action also is taking place at the federal level, where a proposal would ban the use of federal funds for any project moving forward because of the Supreme Court decision. And the Institute for Justice said it will ask the Supreme Court to rehear the New London case, but acknowledged that the prospects of that happening are dim. "One of the things, I think, that is elemental to American freedom is the right to have and hold private property and not to interfere with that right," Rauschenberger said. "For Americans, it's like the boot on the door. You can't kick in the door and come in my house unless I invite you." ___
You damn right! Private property is MORE American than apple pie. Just ask Locke...if he wasn't dead.
Well crap. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3273656 Eminent domain bill appears dead for now House refuses to negotiate, but it could be taken up again if there's another session By POLLY ROSS HUGHES Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle AUSTIN - Legislation to protect private property owners from certain land seizures appeared dead Tuesday when the House refused to negotiate a final version of the bill with the Senate. Although Senate Bill 62 may be doomed for this special session, which ends at midnight, lawmakers are likely to revive the issue if another special session is called. The bill was drafted in response to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing local governments to seize a home or other private property for private economic development. The court, however, said states were free to further limit eminent domain powers if they chose. Prompted by a flood of phone calls to lawmakers from worried property owners, Gov. Rick Perry added the issue to the special session agenda. The Senate passed the bill first and sent it to the House, which added numerous changes to the bill before sending it back to the Senate. Because the House and Senate passed different versions, each chamber needed to appoint members to a conference committee to work out a compromise agreement. The Senate had agreed to negotiate with the House. But Rep. Frank Corte, R-San Antonio, persuaded 91 representatives not to negotiate with the Senate, which he said would result in weakening the bill. Forty voted to negotiate. "We need to do something for the property owners of Texas, and this is the only thing we have right now," Corte said. "If it's watered down, it's not worth passing." Sen. Kyle Janek, R-Houston, who authored the bill in the upper chamber, said he will not accept the House's version. A major sticking point, he said, is a provision that would require governments to pay replacement value — rather than fair market value — when property is seized. "That's just a litigation nightmare," said Janek. "I didn't like that. We have to be very careful about the wording of that bill." Corte told House members that the Senate also had planned to remove an amendment put on by Rep. Terry Keel, R-Austin, preventing a government entity from claiming a public seizure is for safety or health when it's really about economic development. "This is a matter of principle," said Corte. "They're gutting the bill. They're erring on the side of government." Corte had sponsored a resolution seeking a constitutional amendment limiting eminent domain, which he said would have provided stronger protection for Texas property owners. The Senate, however, refused to take it up. Rep. Beverly Woolley, R-Houston, who sponsored the eminent domain bill in the House, denied Corte's allegations that a plan was already hatched to weaken the bill. "There is no done deal. There is no bill printed. We need a bill out so we can calm the fears of our constituents. We need a balanced decision, not a knee-jerk reaction." Janek said he didn't expect the bill to unravel in the waning hours of the special session. "I'm surprised and disappointed," he said. "We needed this bill. I wish the House had not done this."
