Sierra Sun Times June 30, 2013
read complete document (pdf, 23 kb)
As ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary
on June 12, 2013
June 27, 2013 - H.R. 1944 would deny federal
economic development assistance to state or local governments that exercise the
power of eminent domain for economic development purposes or to take property
from a tax-exempt entity, such as a religious or nonprofit organization.
(Eminent domain is the right to take private property for public use.) The bill
also would prohibit federal agencies from engaging in such practices. Private
property owners would be given the right to bring legal actions seeking
enforcement of those provisions, and the bill would waive states’
Constitutional immunity to such suits. Finally, H.R. 1944 would require the
Attorney General to notify states and the public of how the legislation would
affect individuals’ property rights and to report to the Congress each year on
private rights of action brought against state and local governments.
The federal government provides economic
development assistance to state and local governments through several programs,
including the Community Development Block Grant Program, the Social Services
Block Grant Program, Economic Development Administration Grants, Department of
Agriculture grants and loans, and grants made by the regional commissions. CBO
estimates that expenditures from those major programs totaled more than $7
billion in 2012 (although, depending on how the term is interpreted, some of
those expenditures may not meet the definition of economic development under
the bill).
CBO expects that few state and local governments
would receive reduced federal assistance because the use of eminent domain for
the purposes targeted by the bill would be infrequent. Therefore, CBO estimates
that implementing this legislation would have no significant net effect on
those expenditures to state and local governments over the next five years. We
estimate that additional reporting by the Attorney General would cost less than
$500,000 over the next five years, assuming appropriation of the necessary
amounts. Enacting H.R. 1944 would not affect direct spending or revenues;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
H.R. 1944 contains no intergovernmental or
private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA),
but it would impose significant new conditions on the receipt of federal
economic development assistance by state and local governments. (Such
conditions are not considered mandates under UMRA.) Because the bill’s
provisions would apply to a large pool of funds, the bill effectively would
restrict the use of eminent domain by state and local governments and would
limit the ability of local governments to manage land use in their
jurisdictions. Further, state and local governments could incur significant
legal expenses to respond to private legal actions authorized by the bill.
Many states have amended their constitutions or
enacted laws to directly or indirectly prohibit the use of eminent domain for
economic development purposes. Furthermore, the bill would provide several
exceptions, including takings for public use, for public rights of way, for
utilities, to acquire abandoned property, and to remove immediate threats to
public health and safety. While data on eminent domain is difficult to obtain
at the national level, evidence suggests that its use solely for economic
development purposes is minimal compared to other purposes, such as public
infrastructure projects (which would be allowed under the bill without
penalty). Finally, CBO expects that most state and local governments would not
risk the loss of federal economic development assistance by exercising the use
of eminent domain in situations described by the bill.
State or local governments found to have
exercised the power of eminent domain targeted by the bill would be ineligible
for federal economic development assistance for two years. In those cases, CBO
expects that property would be returned or replaced (which would reinstate
eligibility) or that assistance would instead be provided to other eligible
entities. Any change in the pace of spending would be insignificant, CBO
estimates. Continue reading at …… http://goldrushcam.com/sierrasuntimes/index.php/news/mariposa-daily-news-2013/154-june/8962-congressional-budget-office-report-on-hr-1944-private-property-rights-protection-act-of-2013
House Judiciary Committee Approves
Eminent Domain Bill
The House Judiciary Committee approved legislation by voice vote prohibiting
state and local governments that receive federal economic development funds
from using eminent domain to transfer private property from one private owner
to another for the purpose of economic development. The "Private Property
Rights Protection Act" (H.R. 1944) is a direct, albeit delayed, response
to the 2005 Supreme Court decision in the case of Kelo
v. City of New London, which held that it was not unconstitutional to condemn
property for economic development. The Private Property Rights Protection Act
also passed the House of Representatives in the 109th and 112th Congresses but
subsequently died and was never enacted into law. http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/248688/real+estate/House+Judiciary+Committee+Approves+Eminent+Domain+Bill
CORRUPTION CURRENTS FROM THE WALL ST JOURNAL
Streaming
Coverage
|
Days Active
|
Updates
|
|
274
|
90489
|
City seeks to use eminent domain to seize land earmarked
for north ... Omaha
industrial park By Juan Perez Jr.
/ World-Herald staff writer July 4, 2013 The City of Omaha has moved to seize a
controversial north Omaha property through eminent domain.A
city petition filed this week in Douglas County seeks to condemn roughly 70
acres of concrete rubble, overgrowth and dirt. It is wedged between a Carter
Lake golf course and some of the city's most impoverished neighborhoods.The
lawsuit names Virgil Anderson, head of Anderson Excavating Co., and his wife,
Virginia, as owners of most of the property, though it also cites several
estates, a Canadian railroad company and one of Anderson's longtime business
partners as entities that have a potential interest in the property.Former
Mayor Jim Suttle wanted to redevelop the site into
the Ames-Locust Industrial Park to create a potential job magnet for the
area. Continue reading at ….. http://www.omaha.com/article/20130622/NEWS/706229917