Posted on 06/24/2005 7:54:55 AM PDT by JCEccles
Private citizens in Utah didn't wait to hear what the Supreme Court would say in Kelo. We pushed our legislators and governor to implement legislation expressly prohibiting these kinds of takings. So, the Kelo decision is largely a non-event as far as Utah is concerned.
The article says Utah is the first state to enact such legislation. That may be true. About a half a dozen other states also prohibit such takings, but these are likely due to state supreme court rulings specific to those states. Citizens in those states would be wise to fix the problem more permanently and do as as Utah has done, or amend their constitutions.
This particular article is taken from an environmentalist publication which points up the odd alliance that has formed over this issue extending from conservatives and radical libertarians on the right to radical environmentalists on the left.
The villain in this passion play is the cities, bastions of social experimentation and wealth redistribution. Cities delight in restricting private property rights. Rent controls have been a fixture in the big cities for decades.
Bottom line: get angry, but then direct that anger in a positive way, just as Utah citizens have done.
Yea! This needs to be done at the state and local level.
Is this law not trumped by the SCOTUS? Supreme law of the land, and all of that?
"We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose “public use” requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law, while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised."
No. In Kelo the Supreme Court merely extended the limit for how far the government can go in taking property. States and local authorities are prefectly free to enact stricter rules and limits.
SCOTUS said that takings for economic development could be allowed, not that they must be allowed. Kelo et al were saying the takings were unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court disagreed (I think wrongly). This means that states can take private property and transfer it to another, but if states pass a law to limit their power, there is nothing that would be unconstitutional about that.
It's a little too late for this, in Utah's case. On my last trip out west I met a few folks from Utah in Cheyenne, WY who were utterly p!ssed off at the extensive abuse of "eminent domain" that was perpetrated by government officials for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
Of course not. The SCOTUS ruling says cities "can", not that they "must be allowed to". The state legislatures is where this should have been handled in the first place. Having the SCOTUS "rescue" property owners from their elected representatives would definitely be moving in the wrong direction. Look for the Connecticut legislature to follow suit.
No. SCOTUS has ruled that government has the Constitutional power to exercise Eminent Domain broadly. However, the Constitution is a floor, not a ceiling, when it comes to rights. Individual states can pass laws that grant citizens more rights than are in the Constitution.
An individual state, for example, could pass a law that completely banned the use of Eminent Domain by that state.
This was a good move. Perhaps states should amend their constitutions, not just statutes, to prohibit municipalities and the like from taking private property for economic development.
Thanks.
That's been my point -- it is a local State issue and can be taken care of in the legislature which is what needs to be done. If the CT legislature had acted, this would be mute.
Instead of hand wringing, people need to take action to preclude this happening in their state -- city/state government is to blame in the CT case IMHO.
Anyone know where I can find the text of this bill? The Virginia General Assembly is out of session for the year and we have elections this fall. I'd like to see getting something like this passed next year.
Pinging Jeb Bush..........
No, in its idiotic ruling yesterday the SCOTUS said the states could amend their constitutions. However, scotus should never have gotten involved in this to start with and they should never have defined public use as being "public good". Public good is the same as common good used so often by Hillary and other communists and has no place in our govenment especially involving soctus decisions.
"public purposes" ??!? Where in the Constitution does it let them take land for public purpose? It DOESN'T! It only allows for public use, like roads.
As if "Sure, come in and we'll give you any property you want, even if somebody's living on it" is the right message?
Could a state pass legislation allowing citizens to own machine guns?
And to get around the idiotic commerce clause, insist that the weapons be manufactured in that state?
Just curious, as I seem to recall legislation pending in Montana that would do just that.
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.