House bill counters Supreme Court decision on eminent domain

[Judi Lynn]

House bill counters Supreme Court decision on eminent domain

By JIM ABRAMS
Associated Press Writer

November 3, 2005, 6:46 PM EST

WASHINGTON -- Contending that the Supreme Court has undermined a pillar of American society, the sanctity of the home, the House overwhelmingly approved a bill Thursday to block the court-approved seizure of private property for use by developers.

The bill, passed 376-38, would withhold federal money from state and local governments that use powers of eminent domain to force businesses and homeowners to give up their property for commercial uses.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling in a Connecticut case last June, recognized the power of local governments to seize property needed for private development projects that generate tax revenue. The decision drew criticism from private property, civil rights, farm and religious groups that said it was an abuse of the Fifth Amendment's "takings clause." That language provides for the taking of private property, with fair compensation, for public use.

The court's June decision, said House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., changed established constitutional principles by holding that "any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party."
(snip/...)

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--seizingproperty1103nov03,0,2210042.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut

[BlueIris]

1. I didn't love the eminent domain ruling, but I'm initially uncomfortable

with what the House has done here. Once again, it's almost as if the authority of SCOTUS...doesn't matter.

It will be interesting to see whether this flies in the Senate.

[DrGrishka]

7. This has nothing to do with

authority of SCOTUS.

SCOTUS only ruled that the Constitution doesn't PROHIBIT the types of takings at issue in Kelo. It didn't say the Constitution requires these takings. So the government is free to engage or not to engage in them. Here's an analogy so that you perhaps could better picture it. Way back when, SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution does not require that the government pay for abortion of poor women. But that does not mean that the government if it so desires could on its own choose to pay. Same here. Government simply on its own chooses to forego the rights it has under the Constitution. Doesn't impugn SCOTUS in any way.

[Toots]

9. After Bush* vs Gore in 2000 they impugned themselves and nothing

after that ruling IMO is from an impartial Court so does not mean a thing to me.. I have absolutely no respect for the Extreme Court as it has become a total partisan tool....

[DrGrishka]

18. That is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand

n/t

[newyawker99]

20. HI DrGrishka!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Bacchus39]

11. Congress has the authority over the $$$$$$$

and how it is spent. They are not contradicting the SCOTUS ruling at all, they are simply prohibiting the use Fed funds for ED claims for private development that is not public use.

Local governments could still use ED for that purpose if they choose, but they can't use FEd dollars.

I actually want the SCOTUS to revisit the issue and restrict how ED is used.

[Rhiannon12866]

2. Thanks! Let's hope so! I saw this story on CNN last night and was shocked!

It was on "60 Minutes," ages ago, and I couldn't believe that this affront to homeowners was still in effect!:grr:

[BlueIris]

3. Yeah, my other first impression was...WTF?

Because...WTF?

[Rhiannon12866]

4. Here's the "60 Minutes" story, though I didn't realze it was on almost two

years ago. It shocked me when I first saw it, and it shocks me that they can still get away with forcing Americans from their homes! One couple had lived in the same house since, I think, the 1930s!:grr:

Eminent Domain

Dec. 28, 2003

(CBS) Just about everyone knows that under a process called eminent domain, the government can (and does) seize private property for public use - to build a road or a courthouse.

But did you know the government can also seize your land for private use if they can prove that doing it will serve what's called "the public good"?

Cities across the country have been using eminent domain to force people off their land, so that private developers can build more expensive homes and offices that will pay more in property taxes than the buildings they're replacing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/30/60minutes/main626872.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Interestingly, Jersey City is trying to take away a small bar and give the

land to a private Catholic high school that needs 7 more yards for its football field. This is taking a property OFF the tax rolls, and not using the land to a greater economic good, not to mention church/ state issues.

[dkofos]

8. I think the small bar should use the law

to take the land from the catholic high school and expand the bar.

[no_hypocrisy]

16. Cheers!!

[truebrit71]

19. Excellent idea!!!

eom

[winter999]

17. All the Nay votes (11) were Dems!

What's up with that?! Siding with corporations?!

[newyawker99]

21. Hi winter999!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[losdiablosgato]

5. I hope this get passed

ED needs to reserved for only public use.

[Bacchus39]

10. no question about this passing

and even though the Court did "leave it up to the States" to decide if they would use ED for economic development, it still prohibits governments from using Fed funds for the States that choose to do so.

that is good.

but I want the SCOTUS to revisit the issue and declare that government can't use ED for private economic development.

[losdiablosgato]

14. Agreed

[cascadiance]

12. I've got mixed feelings on this...

On the one hand, I totally am against eminent domain being used by cities who's officials political campaigns are being funded by the very same developers who benefit when their "paid for" officials rule in their favor to take over land from others to do their development on. That's what we have here in San Diego, and is becoming a big issue in the special election mayoral race next week.

However, I'm retiscent towards saying all eminent domain-related actions are bad. There are some needs a community has for things like roads, airports, etc. that need to have a certain stretch of land to benefit the whole community, and not just those that fund people's political campaigns.

We are faced here with a need to build a new airport here in San Diego, but many barriers stand in the way of building it close by and not way out in the desert someplace where the land could be obtained without using eminent domain to push people out.

I certainly would agree that there should be some ways to require certain forms of compensation or other benefits to those that are pushed out by eminent domain actions, but proposing in effect a fine in terms of allowing the federal government to benefit from what they perceive as faulty eminent domain exercise I think doesn't benefit the right party. In these cases where more "heavy handed" eminent domain needs to be done to build a segment of a freeway or an airport with no other options, then there should be added restrictions (like certain per acre penalties mandated to those affected) and requirements that they provide other areas for businesses and housing affected by eminent domain to be relocated to. Why should we in California help the RW fascista in Washington even more through these "fines" of lost federal money, etc. going back to the feds.

Not clear as to whether this bill also tries to penalize more "legitimate" usages of eminent domain as well as those that are clearly abuses. Perhaps mandating public approval through a local proposition when eminent domain involves private enterprise as well as needs for public good (roads, etc.) to do something like build a stadium, etc. on rezoned land.

I think we have to be careful not to tie local governments' hands too much in the process of doing much needed reform here to prevent abuse. Especially in big cities that tend to be "blue areas" where eminent domain may be necessary in some instances, but heavily abused in others where population density is high.

[Bacchus39]

13. does not affect roads, utility lines, or other pubic uses

it only refers to using ED to transfer private property from one owner to another private property owner.

roads, schools, and utilities that are public use and ED will not be affected.

[cascadiance]

15. I still think that the penalties should be made to repay the victims...

Not the feds.

As long as the feds are controlled by the RW thugs, this is just doing more to fund their tearing down of our federal government for rich tax breaks and paying for wars, etc. Certain local politicians might not "mind" paying out the penalties anyway in some instances if they still get "rewarded" by the local developer who benefits from this, at the expense of local government coffers. As we can see both at the federal level and local level (like here in San Diego with our pension board mess) RW thugs aren't afraid of local fines if it serves their crony purposes and basically "builds" their case for privatizing more arms of the government if it shows more and more red ink (which would be triggered more with these sorts of sanctions).

We also need to do more "clean elections" legislation in local communities now where this is a problem, to provide less incentive for local government officials to "pay back" their contributions to local developers, etc. that happens in places like it does here in San Diego through giving them "eminent domain" favors.

I'm still concerned about the "devils in the details" where there will be planks in this legislation that won't be talked about but will feel sorry for later (kind of like "no child left behind" legislation, which really meant "no child left off of army recruiters' list").