Mortgage News Home

Friday July 25, 2008

Home Page   26,235 Active Members   Register Welcome, Guest    Sign In  

Home

Latest Headlines

Popular Stories

Bookmark Us

Reader Comments

SUBSCRIBE

SEARCH OUR SITE

RSS News

Mortgage Rates
  30 Yr Fix 6.63% 0.37%
  15 Yr Fix 6.18% 0.40%
  1 Yr ARM 5.49% 0.39%
  5/1 ARM 6.16% 0.36%
  30 Yr Tres 4.70% 0.04%
  Fed Prime 5.00% -0.25%
MND Features

- Wiki
- Video News
- Mortgage License Information
- Real Estate License Information
- Mortgage Content Syndication
- Mortgage Fraud
- Housing Bubble
News Archives

Submit A News Tip
or Story Idea
 

Free Subscription To News Alerts
Stay up to date on breaking news with our free News Alert Service.


Over 100 Bills Limiting Eminent Domain Fill State And Federal Hoppers

7243 Views - Printer Friendly - Email This Story To A Friend
 
RSS COMMENTS(6) LINK HERE ADD NEWS TO YOUR WEBSITE

When the Supreme Court, in June 2005, upheld a lower court's decision allowing the City of New London, Connecticut to proceed in seizing property from private owners to facilitate a redevelopment project by private developers, it set off a firestorm that shows no sign of abating.

The decision, Kelo v. New London concerned 15 homeowners contesting the seizure of their properties in the economically troubled Connecticut city on river adjacent property that also abutted a huge new R&D facility occupied by Pfizer Pharmaceuticals. There was no claim that the property was blighted, just a solid blue collar neighborhood, and Pfizer has been scrambling to convince the world that they had no connection with the case. The City had seized the property under Eminent Domain proceedings on the grounds that redeveloping the area into a mix of office, retail, and higher end residential properties would benefit the public by providing jobs and increasing New London's tax base. By a 5 to 4 vote the Supreme Court supported that rationale while issuing a broad invitation to local governments to review their own eminent domain procedures.


Well, invitation issued and accepted.

Our U.S. Senators and Congresspersons have introduced 47 pieces of legislation having to do with the Kelo decision. Some are resolutions condemning the Supreme Court ruling, other are laws attempting to limit the abilities of government to take private land for private purposes. As far as we could see, none of these have made it out of committee.

On the state level a total of 33 bills were introduced last year in 13 states. (Many of these were identical bills introduced at the same time in both houses of the legislatures.)
Most proposed legislation followed a similar line of reasoning; the government should not be allowed to take property from private landholders even if the end result would be to generate additional revenues and that property should never be turned over to another private interest regardless of the eventual public good.

Some of the bills have an exception for blighted properties, a few, in California and Ohio mandated a temporary moratorium on eminent domain proceedings or at least those for private purposes to allow time for more study. Only a few of the thirteen bills have passed. Here is the roll call for 2005

Alabama and Delaware enacted fairly typical legislation. Texas enacted standard legislation while defeating two other bills. However, the successful bill which was quickly enacted after the Kelo v. New London decision was handed down, contains a few exceptions to the private use concept. One of these is the taking of private property to build the new Dallas Cowboy stadium. Gotta love Texas.

Michigan has passed one bill through both houses of the legislature and that bill will be on the ballot for public decision at the next general election. Two other similar bills are in committee

Minnesota and Oregon both defeated all bills that were proposed in 2005.

California, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all had one or more bills in various stages of consideration at the end of the year. In the case of California there are now six proposed laws, five proposed constitutional amendments and several of the state's famed citizen initiatives in various stages of the legislative process.

New York and Ohio are considering bills with slight to significant deviations from those in other states. Two Ohio bills would create a task force to study eminent domain issues while another would require municipalities to gain specific legislative approval to use eminent domain rather than relying on any authority from the state constitution.

In New York a bill would require a vote from local government to approve any use of eminent domain to condemn private property for another private use and another would require that an approved economic development plan be the basis of any property taking for economic development purposes.

So far in 2006 20 states have introduced nearly 60 pieces of eminent domain legislation, most of which are in the early stages of study and review although some may have recently been enacted.

Our information on legislation comes from the National Conference of State Legislatures and we think there may be some omissions in its data, for example we have seen references to a new Utah law elsewhere and we know that Georgia recently enacted a far-reaching moratorium, but this was the most comprehensive information available.

For a complete list of states and a brief summary of legislation for both 2005 and 2006, see www.ncsl.org/programs/natres/emindomain.htm.

At present the ability of governments to take property for clearly public use such as building roads and schools is not under challenge as it is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is only the private use concept that has inflamed many people regardless of their political philosophies in other matters. However, John Broder, writing in The New York Times quotes The National League of Cities as identifying the proliferation of legislation as being the most crucial issue facing local governments. The organization is asking mayors and other local officials to call on Congress and state legislatures to stop the avalanche of bills to limit the power of government to take private property for presumed public good. Mr. Broder also quoted John D. Echeverria, executive director of the Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute as stating that many states are beginning to seriously overreact to the Kelo decision, risking the destruction of a "significant and sometimes painful but essential government power."

Another view on the rush to enact new legislation has a more sinister bent. Accusations are now being made that extreme private land rights people and organizations are attempting to tap into the anti-Kelo fury to pass legislation to gut existing environmental laws on the basis that these may reduce the value of an owners land without compensation. We will keep track of this argument and write more about it later.



Story Views: 7243 | Permalink

Story Tools



Email This Story To A Friend

Subscribe To News Alerts
 

Related Tags

Select a Tag for more information related to that Tag. (View All Tags)
 

 

Comments (6)

Post Comment Comments RSS


I completely agree with Ben from above. Private property owner should have the final say.

Above Posted By: Evan | Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:37:49 EST

I believe that a private property owner should have the final say on whether or not he has to sell his land for anything, even with roads, goverment housing, etc. Or if not the goverment should have to pay the owner double the value of the land or residence, just because it has an emotional attachment to it not just a dollar amount.

Above Posted By: Ben | Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:04:13 EST

Hi Eminent domain can make sense for instance, when government needs land for a road. What doesn't make sense is that the Kelo decision allows land to be taken from one owner for use by another private party. All the best, Peter

Above Posted By: Peter | Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:40:27 EST

The League of Cities and Towns would carp about how these bills that would handcuff local governments. There is no compassion in government, if there were there would less complaining from those people that have had their property confiscated for a sports complex or a high rise, those have no relevance for the public good. Whereas road right of way or bridge needed does.

Above Posted By: John Doe | Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:21:19 EST

Yes there are people who like eminent domain: developers who don't have to pay as much money for property and local governments who will reap the taxes from the new development. But the property owner is the loser. He does not have the resourses to battle the government.

Above Posted By: Dave | Mon, 13 Mar 2006 23:47:13 EST

Is there anyone that thinks eminent domain is good or anyone that actually thinks eminent domain should be legat? There must be some good uses of eminent domain.

Above Posted By: Anonymous | Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:31:00 EST


Post A Comment

Please fill out the form below to submit a comment.

Name: 
(Required - Type Anonymous or Use First Name Only if Private)
Email Address: 
(Not Required So No Fake Emails Please.)
URL or Weblog:
(Leave Blank If You Don't Have One - Use http://)
Comments: 
(Please keep comments on topic. No HTML Allowed. No Advertisng.)
Please Note: Due to Comment Spam, all comments are reviewed by hand. Most comments will appear shortly after submission but it may take up to 12 hours to appear. If you would like to come back, click here to Bookmark the page.
PLEASE DO NOT USE ALL CAPS


Character Count =     (5000 Character Limit)

If you would like to leave a longer comment, please submit your comments in 5000 character increments and we will merge your comments.
Notify me via email when my comment is approved.


Note: Please don't bother spamming. All submissions are reviewed by our our editorial staff. Comment spam and irrelevant links will not be approved.

 




NEW VIDEO
(6 New Today)
NEW! Ron Paul on American Economy
NEW! Defending the Housing Bill


Reader Comments (More)
Why won't the Bush Administration, Senate, Congress concentrate on one thing at a time. Bernanke pointed to deceptive practices as...
Read
It is really a shame that this industry has become so bad. People tend to blame Loan Officers for putting them into loans that hav...
Read
Florida is not the only state to honor felons in such a manner. Indiana used to be just as bad. I worked for one of the worst croo...
Read
Home - Contact - Sitemap - Disclaimer - Privacy Statement - Advertising
All Content Copyright © 2003 - 2008 Brown House Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form without the express written permission of MortgageNewsDaily.com is prohibited.