Posted on 08/04/2005 5:51:21 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
Alabama yesterday became the first state to enact new protections against local-government seizure of property allowed under a Supreme Court ruling that has triggered an explosive grass-roots counteroffensive across the country.
Republican Gov. Bob Riley signed a bill that was passed unanimously by a special session of the Alabama Legislature, which would prohibit governments from using their eminent-domain authority to take privately owned properties for the purpose of turning them over to retail, industrial, office or residential developers.
Calling the high court's June 23 ruling "misguided" and a "threat to all property owners," Riley said, "A property rights revolt is sweeping the nation, and Alabama is leading it."
The backlash against the judicial ruling has not received much attention in the national press, although legislative leaders in more than two dozen states have proposed statutes and/or state constitutional amendments to restrict local governments' eminent-domain powers.
Besides Alabama, legislation to ban or restrict the use of eminent domain for private development has been introduced in 16 states: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas.
Legislators have announced plans to introduce eminent-domain bills in seven more states: Alaska, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Dakota, South Carolina and Wisconsin, and lawmakers in Colorado, Georgia and Virginia plan to act on previously introduced bills.
In addition, public support is being sought for state constitutional prohibitions in several states, Alabama, California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey and Texas.
In an elaborate signing ceremony in the State Capitol's historic Old House Chamber, Riley said, "Alabamians can rest assured that their homes, farms, business and other private property are safe from being seized by government for a shopping center, or a factory, an office building or new residential development."....
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
I can't wait to flip on Air America's top of the hour updates for the spin on this one! Those &$*# red states!
There's a letter to the editor in our paper this week from the mayor telling us not to worry about eminent domain - local and state "leaders" won't do anything mean with it.
LOL! Little comfort.
Everyone needs to contact your state reps and make it clear that we won't stand for this.
Chop chop, get to it.
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Obviously the mayor thinks people are fools.
fyi
Thanks Southhack. Yes, Alabama is finally first in the nation to do something good!
Yes, Alabama is finally first in the nation to do something good!
They almost got it right... Although the Alabama law that the governor signed yesterday would prohibit such eminent-domain seizures, it contains an exception that would permit takeovers of blighted properties that could be turned over to private interests -- a provision that critics call a loophole for future abuses
I guess it depends on what your definition of "blighted" is. Or rather what a local government would call "blighted". That's why known liars should never hold any kind of public office.
If they mean a few vehicles that don't run and a few pieces of construction tractors and maybe a pile or two of unused construction hardware, then my trailer park is in trouble. But this is Alabama, surely it would have to be worse to be called "blighted". (Besides, the Kudzu hides most of the stuff in the summer.) LOL
But this is Alabama, surely it would have to be worse to be called "blighted".
The danger being someones "blight" intersecting with someone else's "private interest." i.e. So many "blighted" areas and so few Walmarts.
This loophole concerns me. I live in a very nice condo complex. Unfortunately its also located next to a major road with businesses. I don't see myself ever moving again - except maybe to an assisted living place. Anyway what concerns me is that in 10 or 20 years the complex may be declared "blighted" and my home taken away from me.
You could be struck by lightning by then too.
Taking of property for "public use" is in the Constitution and the interpretation of public use as a ‘public purpose,’ has been supported by the courts since the 19th century. Now, because you're told to think about it, you become concerned. Were you concerned about this before this??
The unalienable right to ones private property is best protected with specific laws at the local level. This Alabama law is a start, yet this law is no different than what's been going on for over a century.
If it causes you too much concern, then work with the people of your state to make a better law. Don't rely on the SC to take a vague clause in the Constitution and actively make it better.
You state: Taking of property for "public use" is in the Constitution and the interpretation of public use as a ‘public purpose,’ has been supported by the courts since the 19th century.
If this is the case, why were so many smart people upset with this Court's interpretation of 'public use'? I believe that Kelo was a departure from the previous definition of 'public use'.
I don't go by what other people think. Sorry.
I believe that Kelo was a departure from the previous definition of 'public use'.
You're from NY. In NY, the taking blighted private property using E.D. has been going on for yearssss.
But what the heck. I can't compete with "so many smart people", now can I.
1. I haven't lived in NY for more than 40 years.
2. Are you unable to have a discussion without being rude?
I wasn't being rude.
You, gave me an impossible standard to meet. "So many smart people" believe "x" while I believe "y". No other reason was discussed by you to back up your belief.
So I responded, saying what the "heck", how can I compete. That's rude? How so?
We do love our Wal Marts, but you raise the key issue. If someone uses the "blighted" clause after this, the media and lots of eyeballs will come in to take a look at how our private property is being respected.
My guess is that at least for the near future, (and longer if the courts get in line or Congress corrects the law) people will be able to use the public's outrage to help them with their eminent domain concerns.
OK, let's start over. Based on everytrhing I've read so far about Kelo, where this Court departed from prior reasoning was that "public use" had meant things such as roads, parks, etc. Things managed by a public entity and used by the public. As I understand this decision, this Court went further by defining "public use" as "public benefit", i.e., we may take property from A and give it to B if the tax base is increased because of B's ownership, because a greater tax base equates with "public benefit".
Okay.
Please see U.S. Supreme Court FALLBROOK IRRIGATION DIST v. BRADLEY, 164 U.S. 112 (1896). I believe the case was about the taking of private land for private usage, irrigation. The purpose in this case was public but the usage was private.
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.