Sen. Cornyn is introducing a federal bill (S. 1313, "The Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005") that would bar "economic development" takings:
(a) . . . The power of eminent domain shall be available only for public use.
(b) . . . In this Act, the term "public use" shall not be construed to include economic development.
(c) . . . This act shall apply to (1) all exercises of eminent domain power by the Federal Government; and (2) all exercises of eminent domain power by State and local government through the use of Federal funds.
As I read this, the bill would only apply when states and local governments use federal funds to pay for the taken property (since that's the only time the "eminent domain power" is "exercise[d]" "through the use of Federal funds"); it wouldn't matter whether they use federal funds for the rest of the development project. I suspect that this means the effect on state and local takings will be modest, though perhaps the symbolic impact might be more substantial.
Here's Sen. Cornyn's floor statement and his press release.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Legislative Responses to Kelo:
- Epstein on Kelo:
- Government Responses to Kelo:...
- Thomas Kelo Dissent T-Shirts & Mugs:
- Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) Proposes Limits on Eminent Domain:
- "Something has gone seriously awry": ...
- Kelo Opinions:
- Takings and Privatization:
- Big Government for Its Own Sake:
The Kelo decision struck me as a pretty clear recognition of the fact that land use and zoning have traditionally been state issues, and that it would be inappropriate for the Supreme Court to proclaim a one-size-fits-all definition of "public use" that could be applied to the multiplicity of possible situations in all the various states. By introducing a bill with such a weak definition of "public use," the author of this bill essentially admits the difficulty of resolving this issue on the federal level.
Not only that, but the corruption that Kelo will allow will have the potential to do away with property rights. All a developer or someone else has to do is throw a few bucks to a few local officials and he/she can buy any property he/she wants. And don't think, "oh well, stuff like that wont happen, etc.") There are politicans at the Federal level who are corrupt (ahem, not to mention the International level i.e. UN) and they are held to a much higher standard of character and intellectual ability than local officials. This court is just out of touch with things IMHO.
The exercise of eminent domain by the states certainly has at least a tiny little effect on interstate commerce, which is apparently enough to satisfy the Supreme Court.
1. I think Kelo was wrong (as was the Hawaii case which preceded it); and
2. I would love to see W at the signing ceremony try to explain why it was OK for him to profit incredibly off the exercise of eminent domain on private homes to build the Texas Rangers Stadium but now that he made his millions no one else should be able to.
Because of point 2, however, I don't think the WH would let this legislation get through the Senate -- the memo would get to Frist to lay off it.
Litigation as to property value goes to a jury and the lawyers for property owners in CA routinely make considerable sums of money. Litigation expenses and lawyers fees get paid by the condemning agency.
Most rational property owners, in my experience (related to Main Place), have been quite pleased with the process - they argue about making the agency take more property.
I'm not sure how one convincingly distinguishes taking homes for the 105 freeway vs. Main Place. Both are for economic activity and in either case, the home ends up gone.
Keep in mind the possibility of extortion or over-reaching by "hold out" property owners. Are we willing to have that whenever someone has a development that is at least partly tied to "economic development"? When is a wise public project not partly focused on economic development?
I think the USSCT has it right, from a practical perspective, though its ruling looks offensive.
I believe Kelo's position in the lawsuit was that it wasn't a public use if the government simply took the property to give it to a private developer for economic development. Cornyn's bill would not limit itself to this scenario.
The problem is that the state reserves the right to seize property and thus open up opportunity to corruption.
For what I'm going to suggest you're going to think I'm mad at first but I think the logic is sound.
Why not let residents put a price on their property, the price that they define for property is what they pay a %age in tax for. However ANYONE can purchase that complete property for that price, subject to an arbitrary delay (say 18 months).
This would eradicate a special privilege for the state.
Provide a system for keeping property tax accurate.
Allow development without corruption.
Provide more liquidity to the housing market.
i.e. the State has an incentive to keep an area nice.
"Candidate Bush got the taxpayers of Arlington to spend $135 million toward building his team's stadium, yet the Republican party espouses keeping government out of the way of private enterprise. The Ballpark stands as a monument to what critics call corporate welfare, yet his party advocates reducing welfare rolls. The entire complex stands on land that includes 13 acres taken by eminent domain, yet when campaigning in rural Texas Bush told voters he would keep the government from seizing their private land for public use."
http://espn.go.com/mlb/bush/saturday.html