Eminent
domain constitutional amendment passes in
Senate, House
Augusta Free
Press Posted February 17, 2012
A proposed constitutional amendment that would help protect
private property rights cleared its next-to-last hurdle when it was passed by
the Virginia Senate and House of Delegates. Now it awaits approval by Virginia voters in
November.
The Senate
version of the bill, SJ 3, passed 23-17, and HJ 3, the House version, was
approved 80-18 late Monday.
“We can’t
begin to say how pleased we are that this bill has passed the House and Senate
for the second year in a row,” said Trey Davis,
Virginia Farm Bureau Federation
assistant director of governmental relations. “We are looking forward to
putting this before the state’s voters in November.”
Farm Bureau,
the state’s largest farm advocacy organization, has been supporting a
constitutional amendment for eminent domain reform for the past several years.
For a
constitutional amendment to be enacted, it must pass in the General Assembly
two years in a row with the exact same wording before it goes before voters in
a general election.
The bill,
sponsored by Del.
Robert Bell, R-Charlottesville, and Sen. Mark Obenshain,
R-Harrisonburg, tightens the definition of public use and requires just
compensation for owners whose property has been taken using eminent domain.
“It hasn’t
been easy getting to this point, and I appreciate the bipartisan support that
this constitutional amendment has seen,” Davis
said. “We are confident that Virginians will recognize this as a way to protect
all citizens’ private property rights from unfair takings under the guise of
eminent domain.”
The amendment
has three key parts: Public entities can take private property for public use
only; the entities cannot take more land than is necessary for that public use;
and landowners must be justly compensated. It has been supported by the state
attorney general’s office, as well as by a coalition of agriculture, forestry
and business groups.
The state
constitution currently recognizes that some takings are necessary for public
use. However, Davis
said, public use needs to be narrowly defined and just compensation ensured.
In last
year’s General Assembly, Del. Johnny Joannou,
D-Portsmouth, introduced the bill that would amend the Virginia Constitution to
mirror 2007 statutory changes that strictly defined public use.
Those
changes were made as a result of the 2005 Kelo et al
v. City of New London, Conn.,
et al decision in which the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that private land justifiably can be transferred to another
private party for economic development purposes.
http://augustafreepress.com/2012/02/17/eminent-domain-constitutional-amendment-passes-senate-house/
Federal Bill Proposal Would Limit Eminent Domain (Theft) Authority ... of Local Governments
California County News, 2/1/12 by Stephen Frank
on 02/04/2012
Is it possible Washington
will stop Los Angeles, Fresno and San Fran from stealing private
property? And your town as well.
“Here are some other key points of this legislation that has local government
advocates concerned:
- Private property owners could sue local governments for up to
seven years after property is taken if it is eventually used for economic
development purposes.
- Federal economic development funds would be forfeited for two
years if a local government violates the provisions of the bill; to avoid
forfeiture of funds in this scenario, then a local government would have
to return property
- The bill would essentially restrict the use of eminent domain and
have a substantial impact on a local governments’ authority to oversee
land use in their area
- Both state and local governments would likely incur costly legal
expenses when responding to private legal action sanctioned within the
bill.”
The bill passed the House committee by 23-5. That
means even Democrats want to end the theft of private property. We need
to make this a November campaign issue–will Lois Capps or Jerry McNerney vote for special interests or to stop theft, for
instance.
Tell your friends about H.R. 1433. Stop government
theft.
**************************
Last week at our nation’s
capitol, the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would limit local
governments’ eminent domain authority when it comes to economic development
efforts. Under the proposed Private Property
Rights Protection Act, the National Association of Counties points out that “property
claimed through eminent domain authority could not be used for economic
development purposes for a period of seven years after the taking if the
governmental entity had received any federal economic funding.” Here are some
other key points of this legislation that has local government advocates
concerned:
- Private property owners could sue local governments for up to
seven years after property is taken if it is eventually used for economic
development purposes.
- Federal economic development funds would be forfeited for two
years if a local government violates the provisions of the bill; to avoid
forfeiture of funds in this scenario, then a local government would have
to return property
- The bill would essentially restrict the use of eminent domain and
have a substantial impact on a local governments’ authority to oversee
land use in their area
- Both state and local governments would likely incur costly legal
expenses when responding to private legal action sanctioned within the
bill.
The committee voted 23–5 in favor of this proposal, which
his being opposed by NACo because it infringes on
local planning policies, processes and decisions.
It is
believed this bill (H.R. 1433) will find approval in the House of
Representatives, but it is unclear if enough support will be found in the
Senate.
http://www.californiacountynews.org/2012/01/bill-proposal-would-limit-eminent-domain-authority-of-local-governments.html
********************