posted June 23, 2005 10:49 PM            

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
46 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans.

The 5-4 decision means that homeowners will have more limited rights. Still, legal experts said they didn't expect a rush to claim homes.

"The message of the case to cities is yes, you can use eminent domain, but you better be careful and conduct hearings," said Thomas Merrill, a Columbia law professor specializing in property rights.

The closely watched case involving New London, Conn., homeowners was one of six decisions issued Thursday as the court neared the end of its term. The justices are scheduled to release their final six rulings, including one on the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on public property, on Monday.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use, since the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote, adding that local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community.

He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing — David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit.

The four-member liberal bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects.

At least eight states — Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington — forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow a taking for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.

In dissent, O'Connor criticized the majority for abandoning the conservative principle of individual property rights and handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled.

"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," O'Connor wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

Connecticut resident Susette Kelo and others in the lawsuit pledged to continue their fight. Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would keep fighting the bulldozers in his working-class neighborhood. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

But Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, who as a city council member approved the development, said, "I am charged with doing what's best for the 26,000 people that live in New London. That to me was enacting the eminent domain process designed to revitalize a city ... with nowhere to go."

New London once was a center for the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.

City officials envision a commercial development including a riverfront hotel, health club and offices that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.

The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.

posted June 23, 2005 10:55 PM              

BY ROBERT BRYCE • THE TEXAS OBSERVER, MAY 9, 1997

George W. Bush loves baseball. And why not? After all, baseball has been very good to the governor. When it comes to power, the governor is a true triple-threat. Consider his record: (1) His initial baseball investment of $600,000 carries the current potential of a 2,500 percent return. (2) Through savvy P.R. and political maneuvering, he and his partners have persuaded a city and the state to directly subsidize a facility for their business. (3) Not content with taxpayer subsidies, he and his fellow owners have also successfully used the power of government to take land from other private citizens so it could be used for their own private purposes.

Yet whether the public interest issue is taxes, size of government, property rights, or public subsidies of private sports ventures, Bush’s personal ownership interest in the Texas Rangers baseball team has been wildly at odds with his publicly declared positions on those issues. And ongoing litigation over the Ballpark deal has revealed documents showing that beginning in 1990, the Rangers management—which included Bush as a managing general partner—conspired to use the government’s power of eminent domain to further its private business interests.

Briefly, here’s what happened on the Ballpark deal. Bush and his partners in the Rangers convinced Arlington officials to:

• Pass a half cent sales tax to pay for 70 percent of the stadium;

• Use the government’s powers of eminent domain to condemn land the Rangers couldn’t or didn’t want to buy on the open market;

• Give the Rangers control over what happens in and around the stadium;

• Allow the Rangers to buy the stadium (which cost $191 million to construct) for just $60 million;

Finally, after twelve years as the sole occupant and primary beneficiary of the stadium project, the Rangers, a privately owned business, can take title to the most expensive stadium ever built in Texas for the $60 million worth of rent and upkeep they will have already paid the city.

Since he became governor, Bush has not forgotten the Rangers. Although he put his stocks and other assets in a blind trust when he took office, he kept under his own control his ownership interest in the Rangers (held through a company called GWB Rangers, Inc.) Based on published estimates of his net worth, that interest represents his single most valuable asset.

posted June 24, 2005 10:10 AM            

John Paul Stevens....."since the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and "revenue"."

This Court has now rewritten the 5th Amendment which formerly permitted the taking of private property for "public use". Using the logic of this Court, virtually any raw land or residential property could be taken from one private owner and transferred to another private or corporate owner who promised to increase it's value for tax purposes. In the case of unimproved raw land, that could include a new owner doing nothing more with the land than having it rezoned from agricultural to commercial or residential..even if nothing was planned to be built upon the land; the land could then be taxed at a higher rate which would justify the taking from the original owner.

There was a city council election in my city a few months ago. As is usual, candidates walked the neighborhoods and asked residents for their vote. I asked each one who knocked on my door what their position is on the taking of private property from one owner to give to another private party. I told them the first instance of the city of Madeira Beach talking about condemning private property under eminent domain to take property for a "private" use would find me walking the neighborhoods of the city with a recall petition demanding the recall of city council members.

Perhaps now that the Court has redefined the 5th Amendment it's time for citizen initiatives to write into state, county and city laws and municipal codes the concept that private property is not to be taken for any use other than a public use for a park, municipal building or other use where the municipal authority is to be the end user of whatever is to be built upon the property.

The leftist members of this Court have now done what leftists always do. Expand the authority and scope of government at the expense of the individual. I suggest you watch what happens now when leftist Senators attempt to block or filibuster Bush's appointments to the Federal Courts. It would also be instructive to have a look at which Justices stood up for individual rights under the Constitution and which Justices rewrote the Constitution....without amending it as the Constitution requires.

The short answer to your question Juni is that there is no fairness in this ruling whatsoever. This court has now ruled that some private citizens are more equal in the eyes of the court and under the law than others.

posted June 29, 2005 06:02 PM            

Proposal: Replace Souter's home with 'Lost Liberty Hotel'
June 29, 2005

WEARE, N.H. --Following a Supreme Court ruling last week that gave local governments power to seize private property, someone has suggested taking over Justice David Souter's New Hampshire farmhouse and turning it into a hotel.

"The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare," Logan Darrow Clements of California wrote in a letter faxed to town officials in Weare on Tuesday.

Souter, a longtime Weare resident, joined in the 5-4 court decision allowing governments to seize private property from one owner and turn it over to another if doing so would benefit a community.

The letter dubbing the project the "Lost Liberty Hotel" was posted on conservative radio show host Rush Limbaugh's Web site. Clements said it would include a dining room called the "Just Desserts Cafe" an a museum focused on the "loss of freedom in America."

A message seeking comment from Souter was left at his office Wednesday morning. The court has recessed and Souter was still in Washington, one of his secretaries said.

A few police cruisers were parked on the edge of Souter's property Tuesday.

"It was a precaution, just being protective," said Lt. Mark Bodanza.

Clements is the CEO of Los Angeles-based Freestar Media that fights "abusive" government through a Web site and cable show. He plans to move to New Hampshire soon as part of the Free State Project, a group that supports limiting government powers, the Monitor reported.

The letter was passed along to the board of selectmen. If the five-member board were to endorse the hotel project, zoning laws would have to be changed and the hotel would have to get approval from the planning board.

"At this point, the Board of Selectmen are taking no action," said Laura Buono, board chairwoman. The board met Tuesday night.

"Am I taking this seriously? But of course," said Charles Meany, Weare's code enforcement officer. "In lieu of the recent Supreme Court decision, I would imagine that some people are pretty much upset. If it is their right to pursue this type of end, then by all means let the process begin."

"I have to offer him the luxury of due process," Meany said Wednesday, adding that he planned to tell Clements that "he has started the process backwards." Meany said he will tell Clements he first must petition the selectmen, next the planning board, then the zoning board before "he comes to me for a building permit."

Souter's two-story colonial farmhouse is assessed at a little more than $100,000 and brought in $2,895 in property taxes last year.

The Supreme Court case involved the city of New London, Conn. The justices ruled that City Hall may take over property through eminent domain to make way for a hotel and convention center.

In his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use. He said the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.

posted June 29, 2005 11:03 PM            

Sad damn day.It was the TVA and 5 farms "bought out" here that was on my mind when I read this decision

quote:

---

At least eight states -- Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington -- forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question

---

The 5 Homestead farms are now a complex of business`s out of Detroit complete w/ a golf course.

Maybe food isn`t a requirement for the Justices? Or their children/grandchildren... I AM on the protest my friend!

posted July 01, 2005 01:39 PM            

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Thursday the high court had made "a horrible decision" and he hoped it would cause a backlash.

"The only silver lining to this decision is the possibility that this time the court has finally gone too far and that the American people are ready to reassert their constitutional authority," said DeLay, R-Texas, a critic of recent court decisions.
In a 5-4 ruling last week, the Supreme Court said municipalities have broad power to bulldoze people's homes and put up shopping malls or other private development to generate tax revenue. The decision drew a scathing dissent from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as favoring rich corporations. DeLay agreed.

"Someone could knock on your door and tell you that the city council has voted to give your house to someone else because they have nicer plans for the property," DeLay said.

The House on Thursday approved by a 231-189 vote a bid by conservative Scott Garrett, R-N.J., to bar federal transportation funds from being used to make improvements on lands seized via eminent domain for private development.

Legislation in the works also would ban the use of federal funds for any project getting the go-ahead using the Kelo v. City of New London (Conn.) decision.

"They're going to have to find their own money, instead of coming to Washington," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Susette Kelo, whose riverfront house in New London's Fort Trumbull neighborhood is set to be razed, said she's glad politicians in Washington are working against the decision. "I think the people in this country are outraged in this decision, and rightly so," she said. "Everyone in this country has just lost the right to own their own property."

Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., mentioned community development block grants as one type of money source that would be banned for projects advancing as a result of the Kelo decision.

The grant program provides money to more than 1,000 municipalities for everything from lead abatement in old buildings to improving water and sewage facilities.

Sensenbrenner and the committee's top Democrat, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, are planning a bill that would prevent Washington from claiming eminent domain for economic development and block any state or local government from getting federal funds for projects

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, introduced a similar bill on Monday, with a House companion introduced by Rep. Dennis Rehberg, R-Mont. The Supreme Court has overturned other congressional attempts to supersede its decisions.

"It is clearly within the power of Congress to limit the use of federal funds," Cornyn said.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California says she is opposed to any legislation that would withhold federal dollars "for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court, no matter how opposed I am to that decision."

At least eight states - Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington - already forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.

posted July 02, 2005 07:42 PM            

Congress wasted no time responding to the Supreme Court decision on Kelo vs. City of New London. Below is a resolution entered hours after the decision was rendered. Note especially, the last clause. Senator John Cornyn introduced S.1313 to give meaning to the House Resolution. There is a growing initiative to limit government's power of eminent domain by defining - in law - what the term "public use" means.

109th CONGRESS

H. RES. 340
Expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives regarding the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. that nullifies the protections afforded private property owners in the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 24, 2005

Mr. GINGREY (for himself, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Ms. HARRIS, Mr. OTTER, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mrs. DRAKE, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. ISTOOK, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. POE, and Mr. BLUNT) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives regarding the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. that nullifies the protections afforded private property owners in the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Whereas the takings clause of the fifth amendment states `nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation';

Whereas upon adoption, the 14th amendment extended the application of the fifth amendment to each and every State and local government;

Whereas the takings clause of the 5th amendment has historically been interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court to be conditioned upon the necessity that Government assumption of private property through eminent domain must be for the public use and requires just compensation;

Whereas the opinion of the majority in Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. renders the public use provision in the Takings Clause of the fifth amendment without meaning;

Whereas the opinion of the majority in Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. justifies the forfeiture of a person's private property through eminent domain for the sole benefit of another private person;

Whereas the dissenting opinion upholds the historical interpretation of the takings clause and affirms that `the public use requirement imposes a more basic limitation upon government, circumscribing the very scope of the eminent domain power: Government may compel an individual to forfeit her property for the public's use, but not for the benefit of another private person';

Whereas the dissenting opinion in Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. holds that the `standard this Court has adopted for the Public Use Clause is therefore deeply perverse' and the beneficiaries of this decision are `likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms' and `the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more'; and

Whereas all levels of government have a Constitutional responsibility and a moral obligation to always defend the property rights of individuals and to only execute its power of eminent domain for the good of public use and contingent upon the just compensation to the individual property owner: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That:

(1) the House of Representatives--

(A) disagrees with the majority opinion in Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. and its holdings that effectively negate the public use requirement of the takings clause; and

(B) agrees with the dissenting opinion in Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. in its upholding of the historical interpretation of the takings clause and its deference to the rights of individuals and their property; and

(2) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that--

(A) State and local governments should only execute the power of eminent domain for those purposes that serve the public good in accordance with the fifth amendment;

(B) State and local governments must always justly compensate those individuals whose property is assumed through eminent domain in accordance with the fifth amendment;

(C) any execution of eminent domain by State and local government that does not comply with subparagraphs (A) and (B) constitutes an abuse of government power and an usurpation of the individual property rights as defined in the fifth amendment;

(D) eminent domain should never be used to advantage one private party over another;

(E) no State nor local government should construe the holdings of Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. as justification to abuse the power of eminent domain; and

posted July 02, 2005 07:47 PM            

defining "public use"...
Senate Bill 1313
By Senator John Cornyn
July 1, 2005
109th CONGRESS
S. 1313

To protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights, by limiting the power of eminent domain.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
June 27, 2005

Mr. CORNYN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

A BILL To protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights, by limiting the power of eminent domain.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,/

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The protection of homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against government seizures and other unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle and core commitment of our Nation's Founders.

(2) As Thomas Jefferson wrote on April 6, 1816, the protection of such rights is `the first principle of association, the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it'.

(3) The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution specifically provides that `private property' shall not `be taken for public use without just compensation'.

(4) The Fifth Amendment thus provides an essential guarantee of liberty against the abuse of the power of eminent domain, by permitting government to seize private property only `for public use'.

(5) On June 23, 2005, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Kelo v. City of New London, No. 04-108.

(6) As the Court acknowledged, `it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B', and that under the Fifth Amendment, the power of eminent domain may be used only `for public use'.

(7) The Court nevertheless held, by a 5-4 vote, that government may seize the home, small business, or other private property of one owner, and transfer that same property to another private owner, simply by concluding that such a transfer would benefit the community through increased economic development.

(8) The Court's decision in Kelo is alarming because, as Justice O'Connor accurately noted in her dissenting opinion, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Thomas, the Court has `effectively . . . delete[d] the words `for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment' and thereby `refus[ed] to enforce properly the Federal Constitution'.

(9) Under the Court's decision in Kelo, Justice O'Connor warns, `[t]he specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory'.

(10) Justice O'Connor further warns that, under the Court's decision in Kelo, `[a]ny property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party', and `the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result'.

(11) As an amicus brief filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, AARP, and other organizations noted, `[a]bsent a true public use requirement the takings power will be employed more frequently. The takings that result will disproportionately affect and harm the economically disadvantaged and, in particular, racial and ethnic minorities and the elderly'.

(12) It is appropriate for Congress to take action, consistent with its limited powers under the Constitution, to restore the vital protections of the Fifth Amendment and to protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against unreasonable government use of the power of eminent domain.

(13) It would also be appropriate for States to take action to voluntarily limit their own power of eminent domain. As the Court in Kelo noted, `nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power'.

SEC. 3. PROTECTION OF HOMES, SMALL BUSINESSES, AND OTHER PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.

(a) In General- The power of eminent domain shall be available only for public use.

(b) Public Use- In this Act, the term `public use' shall not be construed to include economic development.

(c) Application- This Act shall apply to--

(1) all exercises of eminent domain power by the Federal Government; and

posted April 02, 2006 12:09 AM            

About the dam in Tennessee-

quote:

---

Laying under the waters of Lake Norris in Tennessee are about 500 acres of mostly rich bottom land which fronted the Clinch River...formerly owned by my family. Before I was born, my family fought the Tennessee Valley Authority over that land. Lake Norris and Norris Dam was the first or one of the first projects of the Tennessee Valley Authority. The fact there is a lake and a dam there now, instead of productive farms is an indication of who won and who lost.

---

I read about the dam building frenzy that set upon our gov't back then.. It was in a book called Cadillac Desert.. Very interesting read. Again, we are in total agreeance- it was a travesty what happened with the Norris Dam..
I say we rally to make em' drain the sucker..
I think it's something that a couple of folks from (seemingly) opposite ends of the spectrum like you and I might be able to come together on! I've heard that if you go far enough in either direction, you end up coming out the other side... maybe there's something to that afterall!

posted April 02, 2006 07:26 PM            

I'm sympathetic to the LA residents who have been using city property for small garden plots. Their argument isn't with the developer but with the city who put the land back up for sale. It seems the city took the land from a private owner and never used it for a public use...didn't build anything on it. Now, since land prices are way up, they sold it back to the original party who had first right of refusal.

I would encourage every city to set aside land within the city for residents who would like to have gardens..not for those who own homes with yards but those who live in apartments or condos. Even if they charged a small lease fee of a few dollars a year, just to help offset insurance, fire, police and other city services.

So, I would say the city council or board of supervisors are responsible for those people losing their garden spots.

Are they offering other vacant land for garden use?

In any event, I'm most unhappy with the US Supreme Court for amending the Constitution by fiat..without going through the amendment process. There's a lot of difference between taking land from private parties for a "public use" and the way the Court worded their ruling which included the terminology "public purpose" which was interpreted to not be a public use at all but rather for resale to another private party.

posted April 02, 2006 09:26 PM            

What's going on with this matter now? What can we still do?

posted April 03, 2006 07:17 PM            

You could also call your state representatives, county board of supervisors and city council members to see if they are introducing state, county and city legislation to limit eminent domain proceedings.

Alabama limits eminent domain
By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
August 4, 2005

Alabama yesterday became the first state to enact new protections against local-government seizure of property allowed under a Supreme Court ruling that has triggered an explosive grass-roots counteroffensive across the country.
Republican Gov. Bob Riley signed a bill that was passed unanimously by a special session of the Alabama Legislature, which would prohibit governments from using their eminent-domain authority to take privately owned properties for the purpose of turning them over to retail, industrial, office or residential developers.
Calling the high court's June 23 ruling "misguided" and a "threat to all property owners," Mr. Riley said, "A property rights revolt is sweeping the nation, and Alabama is leading it."
The backlash against the judicial ruling has not received much attention in the national press, although legislative leaders in more than two dozen states have proposed statutes and/or state constitutional amendments to restrict local governments' eminent-domain powers.
Besides Alabama, legislation to ban or restrict the use of eminent domain for private development has been introduced in 16 states: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas.
Legislators have announced plans to introduce eminent-domain bills in seven more states: Alaska, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Dakota, South Carolina and Wisconsin, and lawmakers in Colorado, Georgia and Virginia plan to act on previously introduced bills.
In addition, public support is being sought for state constitutional prohibitions in several states -- Alabama, California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey and Texas.
In an elaborate signing ceremony in the State Capitol's historic Old House Chamber, Mr. Riley said, "Alabamians can rest assured that their homes, farms, business and other private property are safe from being seized by government for a shopping center, or a factory, an office building or new residential development."
The signing immediately won praise from leading property rights advocates who had condemned the ruling and have lobbied state legislatures to block such practices.
"Kudos to Alabama political leaders for taking the first step toward protecting their citizens from eminent-domain abuse," said Dana Berliner, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, a public policy organization that conducted the first nationwide study of abusive property seizures.
The law came in response to a 5-4 decision by the high court that ruled that the Fifth Amendment's takings clause -- "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" -- did not prevent the city of New London, Conn., from taking Susette Kelo's property for the expressed purpose of private development in order to gain higher tax revenue.
Although the Alabama law that the governor signed yesterday would prohibit such eminent-domain seizures, it contains an exception that would permit takeovers of blighted properties that could be turned over to private interests -- a provision that critics call a loophole for future abuses.

"Alabama's blight law is particularly prone to abuse and must be reformed," Ms. Berliner said. "If legislators close the blight loophole, Alabama will be one of the best states in the country for protecting the rights of home and small business owners."
Jeff Emerson, spokesman for the governor, said yesterday that Mr. Riley would "like to talk to Berliner about this to see how it can be remedied."
The property rights movement, which had been somewhat moribund before the court acted, has spawned what many political strategists expect to be a major issue in the 2006 election cycle.
A number of bills have been introduced in Congress where the issue is winning strong bipartisan support -- from California Rep. Maxine Waters, a liberal Democrat, to Texas Sen. John Cornyn, a conservative Republican.
Polls show unusual unity on strengthening property rights. A Quinnipiac University poll, for example, found that 89 percent of voters in Connecticut want the legislature to limit eminent domain. A University of New Hampshire poll found that 93 percent of state residents were opposed to taking property for private development.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050804-120711-4571r.htm

posted April 03, 2006 09:49 PM              

St Petersburg, FL--As national criticism of a Supreme Court decision expanding Eminent Domain grows, Florida Libertarians have been particularly active in creating broad coalitions against the practice. They've been bombarding legislators from small towns to the national capital with articles, letters and e-mails, say legislative aides.

The action is getting results. Congress has taken up legislation, and in Florida several local governments have passed regulations or resolutions to prevent businesses from using Eminent Domain to take people's homes for profit.

Libertarians support free enterprise and homeownership and say any government favoritism harms both.

PINELLAS COUNTY WIN

Now, in Pinellas County, Florida, Libertarians e-mailed key officials in every town and city in the county, followed by a call-in campaign co-ordinated with local community groups. In addition, many groups sent representatives to a 'Teach-In' hosted by the Libertarians on what other communities are doing on the subject. The county is considered a bell-weather by political analysts.

Last week a Pinellas town passed a limiting ordinance, and others are studying ways to limit Eminent Domain. The local Libertarians ask interested people to contact them at their website, www.LPPinellas.org and emphasize they are part of an effort across party lines.

The effort follows an often seen Libertarian pattern of zeroing in on an issue of their often counter-intuitive platform, using it to give form to local discontent through person to person meetings, and rapidly building a small but broad coalition of local leaders that upset political wisdom. 'Many officials say they agree with the concepts, says Julie Chorgo, the the local LP Secretary.' But they're unsure of public interest or support until coalitions like these speak up.'

COMMUNITY TEACH-IN

Said Jim Jackson, who identified himself as a 'small African-American businessman' and a 'Teach-In' participant: 'I assumed the Libertarians were too out of the mainstream to be effective. Then I realized their strategy was to help people realize they can change the riverbed bit by bit. They are very good at taking surprising proposals and showing they're actually being done successfully somewhere. Their presentations on what people are doing in different communities using Libertarian ideas are informative. You wonder how officials think they can govern ignoring Libertarian information.'

The 'Teach In' entitled 'The Libertarian Edge' was a one hour presentation on what was happening in other communities using Libertarian tools and proposals, followed by a brainstorming session run by the participants to create 3 action items, he said. Participants received a manual of how citizens could bring yo their communities successful Libertarian solutions in place in the US and abroad.

"This is another example of local Libertarians getting out there and working across party lines so officials and our communities know there are choices," said Bill Sachs, a local Libertarian who monitors affordable housing and Eminent Domain community problems, and participates in a postal service advisory board as well.
http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=34066

posted November 11, 2006 11:44 AM            

Constitutional Amendment to Prohibit Some Eminent Domain Seizure of Property
Proposal 06-4

A proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit government from taking private property by eminent domain for certain private purposes

The proposed constitutional amendment would:

Prohibit government from taking private property for transfer to another private individual or business for purposes of economic development or increasing tax revenue

Provide that if an individual's principal residence is taken by government for public use, the individual must be paid at least 125% of property's fair market value
Require government that takes a private property to demonstrate that the taking is for a public use; if taken to eliminate blight, require a higher standard of proof to demonstrate that the taking of the property is for a public use

Preserve existing rights of property owners

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted November 11, 2006 01:13 PM              

this land was your land..this land was my land..all the land was free and clear..
a place for all...

when Man took possession..and put a price on the land..he made a big mistake...

God gave US this Earth..
Freely. ...

posted November 11, 2006 03:38 PM            

Amendment 8 - Eminent Domain

RESULTS: Passed

SUMMARY

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to prohibit the transfer of private property taken by eminent domain to a natural person or private entity; providing that the Legislature may by general law passed by a three-fifths vote of the membership of each house of the Legislature permit exceptions allowing the transfer of such private property; and providing that this prohibition on the transfer of private property taken by eminent domain is applicable if the petition of taking that initiated the condemnation proceeding was filed on or after January 2, 2007.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT #3 TO THE Madeira Beach CITY CHARTER Asks whether the City Charter shall be amended to prohibit the use of the power of eminent domain by the City for the acquisition of private property for private economic development purposes?

Passed...71% YES

posted November 14, 2006 11:23 AM              

PROPOSAL 06-4

A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT GOVERNMENT FROM TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR CERTAIN PRIVATE PURPOSES

The proposed constitutional amendment would:

• Prohibit government from taking private property for transfer to another private individual or business for purposes of economic development or increasing tax revenue.

• Provide that if an individual’s principal residence is taken by government for public use, the individual must be paid at least 125% of property’s fair market value.

• Require government that takes a private property to demonstrate that the taking is for a public use; if taken to eliminate blight, require a higher standard of proof to demonstrate that the taking of that property is for a public use.

• Preserve existing rights of property owners.

Should this proposal be adopted?

Yes

No

Results:

Proposal 4 Eminent Domain