In the following states, it is unlawful to seize homes: Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington. So this decision does not apply to you if you own property there.
It's just a state legislative vote away...
Can the states install laws that will override the SC decision?
Are those state constitutional amendments? Can the Supreme Court overrule those? Because the overruled state law in the medical marijuana ruling.
That may or may not be true for residential property in those states, but I don't believe that holds in South Carolina with other property, such as farms or commercial property -- or the property owned by another state:
Authority to weigh port plan
State agency will review Jasper, other proposals
BY MICHAEL R. SHEA, The Beaufort Gazette
Published Wednesday, June 22nd, 2005CHARLESTON -- The State Ports Authority voted Tuesday to consider the Jasper County port compromise, but the state agency remains steadfast in pursuing its own vision of a cargo container terminal on the north bank of the Savannah River.
On Thursday, the Jasper County Council unanimously approved a settlement option in its ongoing Supreme Court legal battle with the State Ports Authority. The state agency, by a unanimous vote, agreed to forward that compromise to its attorneys for consideration.
The State Ports Authority and Jasper County have been embroiled in six months of litigation since the state agency filed a Supreme Court lawsuit against the county in January. The move came just days after the county reached a $450 million development agreement with private port builder SSA Marine. The lawsuit aims to settle who has the superior right to build a port on the Savannah River.
"We have received a proposal from Jasper County and we welcome it," Carroll Campbell II, a member of the authority's board of directors, read from a prepared statement. "The proposal is complex and raises complicated business and legal issues. I move that we refer the proposal to (legal) counsel for review and that the authority proceed along the competitive bidding process previously authorized by this board."
Last week the State Ports Authority's executive management met with 12 ocean carriers and stevedoring companies, including SSA Marine, to court private partnership dollars for the Charleston Navy Base and Jasper County port projects. This week, officials are meeting with companies in New Jersey for a second informational meeting. SSA Marine is expected to attend.
The meetings are a result of a January board decision to take the county to the court and pursue its own private partner for a Savannah River port project.
After Tuesday's meeting, Ports Authority chairman Harry Butler said the settlement offer will be considered when reviewing other private partnerships options.
"We're trying to pick the best structure," he said, "and I'm sure multiple companies will come up with multiple structures."
Private enterprises interested in the partnership with State Ports in Jasper County and Charleston must submit proposals by Aug. 1, at which point the state agency will decide on the best deal structure and release a request for bids to the open market.
Tuesday's meeting drew attention after Tom Davis, a Beaufort member of the State Port Authority, announced that he thought the agency should entertain settlement options. Davis was supported by five of the seven senators and eight of the 14 representatives in the Charleston Legislative Delegation and every General Assembly member from Beaufort.
Senator Scott Richardson, R-Hilton Head Island, could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
After Tuesday's meeting, Davis refused to comment, in part because of Campbell's motion, which included a de facto gag order.
"All future communication or interaction will be by the chairman, attorneys, or other individuals duly authorized by the chairman," Campbell included in the motion.
Butler explained the action, saying it was recommended by Ports Authority attorneys, Columbia-based Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough.
That the authority chose to consider the proposal pleased Jasper County.
"That's fair enough; we're still in the ballpark," said George Hood, chairman of the Jasper County Council. "That is better than turning it down flatly."
The authority caught heavy criticism in March from both the county and the General Assembly for refusing Sen. Clementa Pinckney's proposed compromise, which included an SSA-built port turned over the state after 30 years.
"I'm glad it's at least being considered," Pinckney said Tuesday of the new compromise. "I hope it won't be studied to death or killed by committee, but given serious consideration. I hope everyone realizes time is of the essence."
Although the mechanics of the County Council compromise have not been released publicly, Butler loosely discussed the plan Monday. It includes a Phase 1 development by SSA Marine and Jasper County, with the State Ports Authority owning the entire property and being responsible for spearheading the land condemnation effort, he said.
As Tuesday's meeting made clear, Jasper County and the authority have elaborate development plans for the 1,863 acres on the South Carolina bank of the Savannah River. But the land is owned by the Georgia Department of Transportation, and any South Carolina usage of the site will require a successful condemnation.
Before any agent of South Carolina goes after Georgia-owned land, who's in charge on this side of the river needs to be decided, a question likely to remain unanswered until the Supreme Court convenes this fall.
Contact Michael R. Shea at 298-1057 or mshea@beaufortgazette.com. To comment on this story, please go to islandpacket.com.
Now, after all of Georgia's and South Carolina's squabbling about land around the Savannah, it looks there will be another argument since it doesn't appear that South Carolina is just going to buy this land from Georgia.
Florida is the site of some of the most egregious abuses of eminent domain, particularly Riviera Beach.
Take a look at http://www.ij.org and
http://www.castlecoalition.org
These two sites are of organizations that fight eminent domain abuse. In light of the Kelo disaster, it is more important than ever to contact state legislators about eminent domain. The Kelo ruling does not preclude states from regulating and stopping eminent domain.
In the following states, it is unlawful to seize homes: Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington. So this decision does not apply to you if you own property there.I guess we need to come up with a full list of all the states & how well vs. how badly they protect property rights. Then we can tell which states we need to focus on.