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?
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.
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.
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.
"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?
They are leading the charge against the robed tyrants!
The only major change to eminent domain was several years ago and was procedural. There was a court case that determined that restricting use of private land was also a taking. For example, placing a bikeway easement or a greenbelt easement across private land amounted to denying the owner the use of the land and was a taking.
read later
I would embark on a three-pronged strategy on these property rights issues:
1) Do what Utah did and start fighting this at the state level;
2) Revamp all "private property" arguments to emphasize the "public benefit" aspects of private property in line with the rulings in the mill acts. If these are they rules they want to play by, we better learn to play by their rule book. And we can win---but it requires a shift in legal strategy away from fighting the old "pristine private property" arguments; and
3) GET NEW SUPREME COURT JUDGES IN.
Bookmark
What big city has rent control other than NYC?
Frank another interesting article relevant to our discussion.
I am sure some lawyer hired by a developer could come up with some excuse all these State laws violate "Interstate Commerce".
If it ever reaches the USSC I bet the same 5 would go for it.
I am half joking but the other of me would not be surprised considering this day and age.