Posted on 11/03/2005 10:21:40 AM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Charging that the Supreme Court undermined one of the pillars of American society, the House took up legislation Thursday to block court-sanctioned seizings of people's homes for use by private developers.
The bill, headed toward easy passage with bipartisan support, would withhold federal funds from state and local governments that use powers of eminent domain to force homeowners to give up their property for commercial uses.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling in June, recognized the power of local governments to seize property needed for private development projects that generate tax revenue. The decision drew criticism from a broad spectrum of private property, civil rights, farm and religious groups which said it was an abuse of the Fifth Amendment's "takings clause" which provides for the taking of private property, with fair compensation, for public use.
The ruling in Kelo v. City of New London allowed the Connecticut city to exercise state eminent domain law to require several homeowners to cede their property for commercial use.
With this "infamous" decision, said Rep. Phil Gingrey (news, bio, voting record), R-Ga., "homes and small businesses across the country have been placed in grave jeopardy and threatened by the government wrecking ball."
"For a country founded on property rights, this is a terrible blow," said the House's third-ranked Republican, Deborah Pryce of Ohio.
The legislation is the latest, and most far-reaching, of several congressional responses to the court ruling. The House previously passed a measure to bar federal transportation funds from being used to make improvements on land seized for private development, and the Senate approved an amendment to a transportation spending bill applying similar restrictions.
About half the states are also considering changes in their laws to prevent takings for private use.
The bill before the House would cut off for two years all federal economic development funds to states and localities that use economic development as a rationale for a taking. It also bars the federal government from using eminent domain powers for economic development.
"By subjecting all projects to penalties, we are removing a loophole that localities can exploit by playing a 'shell game' with projects," said Rep. Henry Bonilla (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, a chief sponsor.
Eminent domain, the right of government to take property for public use, is typically used for projects that benefit an entire community, such as highways, airports or schools.
___
The bill is H.R. 4128
On the Net:
Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/
Regardless of the issue at hand, this method of enforcement is crap.
The only people who liked the Kelo ruling were greedy politicians looking for more revenue for their pet projects.
What method of enforcement would you suggest?
The bill before the House would cut off for two years all federal economic development funds to states and localities that use economic development as a rationale for a taking.
I'm all for the constitutional granted application of eminent domain. It's wrong though to hold taxpayer's money hostage because the State politicians and bureaucrats abuse eminent domain. That abuses the taxpayers. Instead, the government officials that abuse eminent domain should be held accountable, removed from office and have the abuse of eminent domain violation reversed.
It also bars the federal government from using eminent domain powers for economic development.
Each state should do the same.
Eminent domain, the right of government to take property for public use, is typically used for projects that benefit an entire community, such as highways, airports or schools.
Article. I.
Section. 8.
Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
Eminent domain should only apply to operation of government. Highways are okay but not airports and schools. Leave those to the marketplace.
The Wetlands Act is one of those "tchnical" government takings which restrict the use of one's land without compansation. We had a $30,000 lawsuit here because a homeowner built a shed within the 100 year buffer zone of a wetland. It was absurd. It was Not: "Just take down the shed. It was take down the shed and pay $30,000, too."
see post 6
Make the government pay for it's takings and it would put a stop to the abuse and expose the environmental lobbyists for enlisting the government to steal for them
Then we have to deal with that collection of communists/socialists laughingly referred to as the U.S. Senate...
I strongly believe that the Senate will overwhelmingly support the House in any eminent domain action.
Reason:
I was in discussion with a liberal acquaintance. She was all steamed up about how the Supreme Court ruled that towns could simply take their property, and was very upset that President Bush would appoint another one of those dastardly conservative judges instead of a good moderate like O'Conner, who wrote the Kelo dissent.
She was totally disbelieving when I informed her that the other justices who were in the minority were the dastardly conservatives Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist.
I really really really don't think the Demodogs want to make any issue out of this and give us the chance to educate the public as to which of the USSC judicial philosophies was responsible for Kelo. They'll let it pass as rapidly as possible, I believe.
Not at all. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) from the federal government are often used as a slush fund by local governments. And some of that is used to (under)pay for seizures of private property via eminent domain, which in turn is transferred to private developers to construct commercial projects which will increase local tax revenues.
And of course money is fungible, so even if the CDBG funds weren't used directly for eminent domain, they free up other money for that purpose. So this method of enforcement is perfectly reasonable.
Why just two years? Why not just cut them off?
"Charging that the Supreme Court undermined one of the pillars of American society, the House took up legislation Thursday to block court-sanctioned seizings of people's homes for use by private developers."
I would charge that the ruling from SCOTUS exposed a flaw in law and that they sent a message to Congress to DO THEIR JOB and fix this. I do not lay blame on Scotus for this, I lay blame for lack of action by the Congress to deal with what a coequal branch of gov't sent to them.
This is example of BLAME GAME in lieu of action to just solve this utter STUPIDITY. Congress needs to make it CLEAR in LAW that this cannot take place. If they do not, it is not the blame of SCOUTS, its their own fault for lack of acting on such an important thread that makes up the very fbric of this country.
"It's wrong though to hold taxpayer's money hostage because the State politicians and bureaucrats abuse eminent domain. That abuses the taxpayers. Instead, the government officials that abuse eminent domain should be held accountable, removed from office and have the abuse of eminent domain violation reversed."
EXACTLY.
I was unaware that city and state officials take an oath to defend the Constitution...
I would propose, if local governments confiscate properties for an increase in revenue, the "increase", in proportion of the assets that were stolen, should be returned to the removed party for as long as they live.
Oath of Office for the Kentucky Governor:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.