Virginia General Assembly OKs Measure to Restrict Taking Property

AP via WTOP ^ | February 15, 2006 | LARRY O'DELL, Associated Press Writer

[FoxInSocks]

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - Legislation limiting government authority to seize private property cleared both chambers of the General Assembly on Tuesday, the final day for each legislative chamber to act on its own bills.

The Senate voted 38-0 to pass its version of the bill after it was revived on the floor by its sponsor, Sen. Kenneth W. Stolle, who earlier had asked his colleagues to return the measure to committee and carry it over until the 2007 session to give the Virginia Housing Commission an opportunity to work with lawmakers on the bill.

The House passed a companion eminent domain bill a few hours earlier. The bill, sponsored by Republican Del. Terrie Suit of Virginia Beach, was one of more than 200 measures dealt with by the House in barely more than an hour Tuesday.

Like most other bills on the voluminous House calendar, the eminent domain proposal generated no debate. House Speaker William J. Howell, R-Stafford, congratulated the delegates for finishing their annual "crossover day" work in record time.

The rapid disposition of bills and resolutions contrasted sharply with Monday's seven-hour House floor session as well as the Senate crossover session, which dragged into the evening.

Stolle, R-Virginia Beach, and Suit introduced the eminent domain legislation in response to a widely criticized U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that upheld a Connecticut city's right to condemn homes for private commercial development. The bills, as approved in committee, said government could not use eminent domain for the primary purpose of enhancing tax revenue.

At the behest of Del. Johnny Joannou, D-Portsmouth, the House amended Suit's bill Monday to make it even more restrictive. The revised measure allows property to be condemned only for public uses. Suit opposed that change, saying it would impair the ability of localities to clean up blighted property.

[PistolPaknMama]

But what about progress? What if a private developer wants to build a 300 story hotel complete with an indoor putt putt course? /barf-o-matic off

[vabeachrepub]

Good for them - its nice to see them get it right.

[TXBSAFH]

Good

[tfecw]

"...was one of more than 200 measures dealt with by the House in barely more than an hour Tuesday. "

I don't see how that can be good news.

[tfecw]

Interesting...Stolle is all for letting you keep your property. Apparently as long as he gets to tell you what you can and can't do on it... Virginia Senate passes indoor smoking ban

[ZGuy]

A little help here please. If the USSC already ruled that it is constitutional for a government to take property via eminent domain for private commercial development, what good would a state government passing a law banning the procedure do? Wouldn't it be like abortions, where if a local government made it illegal to do abortions, the court would just say "You can't do that"? (Possibly not the best illustration, but you get the point)

[tfecw]

Doh...link should be to the 6th post, not the 16th :/

[FoxInSocks]

From the Institute for Justice web site:

Chip Mellor, the president of the Institute for Justice, said, “The majority and the dissent both recognized that the action now turns to state supreme courts where the public use battle will be fought out under state constitutions. The Institute for Justice will be there every step of the way with homeowners and small businesses to protect what is rightfully theirs. Today’s decision in no way binds those courts.”