Posted on 07/12/2006 10:45:39 AM PDT by ChildOfThe60s
Eminent domain: HB 508 lays down specific conditions before the state may condemn private property under the state's eminent domain laws. The bill, a response to the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo case, prohibits the condemnation of private property unless it will be used for an exclusive public use such as government purposes, public utilities or to eliminate blighted areas.
(Excerpt) Read more at kentuckylawblog.com ...
Still, if my other reading was correct, most states still have done nothing to protect their residents from property theft. At least we are ahead of the curve on that. I guess most states are figuring if they dither long enough, the peope will forget the issue. Unfortunately, that is what usually happens.
Hoorah for the "Bluegrass State".
AN ACT relating to eminent domain.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky:
SECTION 1. A NEW SECTION OF KRS 416.540 TO 416.680 IS CREATED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
(1) Every grant of authority contained in the Kentucky Revised Statutes to exercise the power of eminent domain shall be subject to the condition that the authority be exercised only to effectuate a public use of the condemned property.
(2) Public use shall mean the following:
(a) Ownership of the property by the Commonwealth, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or other governmental entity;
(b) The possession, occupation, or enjoyment of the property as a matter of right by the Commonwealth, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or other governmental entity;
(c) The acquisition and transfer of property for the purpose of eliminating blighted areas, slum areas, or substandard and insanitary areas in accordance with KRS Chapter 99;
(d) The use of the property for the creation or operation of public utilities or common carriers; or
(e) Other use of the property expressly authorized by statute.
(3) No provision in the law of the Commonwealth shall be construed to authorize the condemnation of private property for transfer to a private owner for the purpose of economic development that benefits the general public only indirectly, such as by increasing the tax base, tax revenues, employment, or by promoting the general economic health of the community. However, this provision shall not prohibit the sale or lease of property to private entities that occupy an incidental area within a public project or building, provided that no property may be condemned primarily for the purpose of facilitating an incidental private use.
(4) The exercise of the power of eminent domain for the acquisition of property financed by state road funds or federal highway funds shall be exempt from the provisions of this section.
Section 2. KRS 416.540 is amended to read as follows:
(1) "Condemn" means to take private property for a public use[purpose] under the right of eminent domain;
(2) "Condemnor" shall mean and include any person, corporation or entity, including the Commonwealth of Kentucky, its agencies and departments, county, municipality and taxing district authorized and empowered by law to exercise the right of eminent domain;
(3) "Condemnee" means the owner of the property interest being taken;
(4) "Court" means the Circuit Court;
(5) "Property" means real or personal property, or both, of any nature or kind that is subject to condemnation;
(6) "Eminent domain" means the right of the Commonwealth to take for a public use[purpose] and shall include the right of private persons, corporations or business entities to do so under authority of law.
Doesn't sound like much protection to me. The Blighted are" and "Eminent domain" means the right of the Commonwealth to take for a public use[purpose] and shall include the right of private persons, corporations or business entities to do so under authority of law." Leave it wide open.
Here in FL we have a Mayor over on the east coast using Blighted Area to take land and give it to developers.
Actually the whole problem with eminent domain revolves around the idea of "fair market value". If that is determined in the traditional way (It's worth what I'm prepared to take in payment for it) as opposed to the Marxist way (it's worth what those in authority tell you it's worth) then we would have none of these problems.
Realistically, who could object to being compelled by government to give up their property, but they decide the price they will be paid?
You mean Riviera Beach?
This bill isn't great, certainly not what I'd like. But it will make it a lot easier to fight the government. And I think the wording is just enough to give some cities pause before they run roughshod over people.
Likewise. It is the old partial birth abortion clause, "except to preserve the health of the mother".
Yeah, like helping her with her cold.
Yep, that's the one. I also remember reading that FL has changed it's law recently and I was wondering if it affected the Riviera Beach land grab.
I left Hell (Florida) in mid February, at that point there was also a land grab going on south of Miami. Plantation or someplace like that.
I do remember that lying so and so Charlie Crist saying that FL didn't need a law to protect us, that FL couldn't do that already. All the while Riviera Beach is fixing to make 6,000 DIMocrat constituents homeless to build a marina for the rich folks (libs). Palm Beach County, a real slice of middle America. /snigger
Good luck. Crist has a good shot at being your next governor.
(3)"No provision in the law of the Commonwealth shall be construed to authorize the condemnation of private property for transfer to a private owner for the purpose of economic development that benefits the general public only indirectly, such as by increasing the tax base, tax revenues, employment, or by promoting the general economic health of the community. However, this provision shall not prohibit the sale or lease of property to private entities that occupy an incidental area within a public project or building, provided that no property may be condemned primarily for the purpose of facilitating an incidental private use."
From the above paragraph, this part, seems somewhat nebulous(see below):
"However, this provision shall not prohibit the sale or lease of property to private entities that occupy an INCIDENTAL AREA within a public project or building, provided that no property may be condemned primarily for the purpose of facilitating an INCIDENTAL PRIVATE USE." (EMPHASIS MINE)
INCIDENTAL: minor or casual or subordinate in significance or nature or occurring as a chance concomitant or consequence.
So "This provision shall NOT prohibit the sale or lease of property to PRIVATE ENTITIES that occupy a CHANCE or CASUAL AREA within a public project or building.
SO IF A "PRIVATE ENTITY" -- BY CHANCE (INCIDENTALLY)-- occupies an AREA (an INCIDENTAL Area) within a public project or building; The 'PRIVATE ENTITY' may BUY OR LEASE said property: as long as the property is NOT 'condemned primarily for the purpose of facilitating(HELPING TO PROMOTE) an Chance (INCIDENTAL) PRIVATE USE." by said 'PRIVATE ENTITY'
Talk about double talk!
Must be a lawyer thing!
Definition of Eminent domain:
(6)"'Eminent domain' means the right of the Commonwealth to take for a public use[purpose] and shall include the right of private persons, corporations or business entities to do so under authority of law."
From the very top line:
"No provision in the law of the Commonwealth shall be construed to authorize the condemnation of private property for transfer to a private owner for the purpose of economic development that benefits the general public only indirectly."
TRANSLATION IN ENGLISH
A PRIVATE PARTY, MAY exercise EMINENT DOMAIN: 'for the purpose of economic development, that benefits the general public DIRECTLY; EXCLUDING: tax base, tax revenues, employment, or promoting the general economic health of the community.
So what does that leave?
I'm not sure if there's a lope hole in this law, or not, but if there is one, you can be pretty sure that some lawyer, somewhere, is trying to find it -- even as I write.
I'll bet they started 90 days ago when the law was passed.
"However, this provision shall not prohibit the sale or lease of property to private entities that occupy an INCIDENTAL AREA within a public project or building,
I have been in government buildings with small, privately run concessions in rented/leased spaces. This is what I interperate this sentence to mean.
There are what appear to be potential loopholes, that's for certain. But, I think that the intent of the law is fairly clear so that when a loophole is found and exploited the victims (aka the citizens) will be more able to defend themselves by pointing out this obvious intent. Of course that shouldn't ever have to be necessary, but government greed being what it is.......
..."I think that the intent of the law is fairly clear so that when a loophole is found and exploited the victims (aka the citizens) will be more able to defend themselves by pointing out this obvious intent."
Indeed, the law DOES appear clear that a private party can no longer use eminent domain fore: "development that benefits the general public only indirectly such as by increasing the tax base, tax revenues, employment, or by promoting the general economic health of the community"
This phrase alone: "or by promoting the general economic health of the community" covers a lot of evils.
We will have to wait and see how the Kentucky courts handle any eminent domain cases that come their way in the future.
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.