Bill seeks to restrict eminent domain

A bipartisan group of state lawmakers, spurred by a recent US Supreme Court ruling, is pushing a measure designed to curb the power of Massachusetts cities and towns to take private property to make way for private economic development.

Under the measure authored by Representative Bradley H. Jones Jr., the House Republican leader, municipalities would be prevented from taking private property for private development except in cases where the property is ''a substandard, decadent, or blighted open area" under state law.

Geoff Beckwith of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, which lobbies for cities and towns, says the law would handcuff local officials.

''Why blunt that tool? Why take it away, especially since the decisions are being made locally?" Beckwith said. ''You have to feel for people who want to stay in their homes and like where they are. But if an area has lost thousands of jobs and developing that area would create thousands of jobs and commerce in a community, there is a broader public interest."

In Massachusetts, the prospects for legislation tightening eminent domain appears strong. The House already has approved a nonbinding resolution condemning the Supreme Court's decision, and Jones's proposal has 47 cosponsors from both the House and Senate. He is offering it both as legislation, which could be passed immediately, and an amendment to the state Constitution, which would take several years but would offer more permanency.

We have a group just like that in Texas. It's called the Texas Senate, and they passed a watered down bill last special session. What makes it worse they convinced many Texans they had really done something for us.

HJR11 and its companion SJR is a constitutional amendment, and the only way to keep politicians from changing it before the ink is dry.

Gov Perry just allowed it out for a vote, but the Senate will try their trick again. Calling did not help last special session, so I spent lots of time on the hill. That did not help either. They down't seem to give a damn.

Rep. Corte is a true Texas that talks straight. We need more like him!

All eyes are on Gov. Perry, now we will see what he is made of. He will either fight for a constitutional amendment, or try and tell us he did all he could.

Political double talk is cheap in Texas, we have one thing going for us, it's an election year. I will vote for whoever is strong for personal property rights. It's time to curb eminent domain.

''You have to feel for people who want to stay in their homes and like where they are. But if an area has lost thousands of jobs and developing that area would create thousands of jobs and commerce in a community, there is a broader public interest."

Their side in a nutshell. You have to feel for people who want to stay in their homes (and businesses!) ......geez, it belongs to them!!! I lived in Boston for a long time, and experienced some of this crap first hand in Central Square.

Today, the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors unanimously directed that the following text from The Private Property Protection Act of 2005 (CA Senate Constitutional Amendment 15 McClintock and Assembly Constitutional Amendment 22 La Malfa) be adapted to local ordinance form by our County Counsel and be brought back at our next Board meeting in September for its first reading for adoption.

(a) Private property may be taken or damaged for a stated public use only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. The Private property may not be taken or damaged for private use.

(b) Private property may be taken by eminent domain only for a stated public use and only upon an independent judicial determination on the evidence that the condemnor has proven that no reasonable alternative exists. Property taken by eminent domain shall be owned and occupied by the condemnor or may be leased only to entities that are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission. All property that is taken by eminent domain shall be used only for the stated public use.

(c) If any property taken through eminent domain after the effective date of this subdivision ceases to be used for the stated public use, the former owner of the property or a beneficiary or an heir, if a beneficiary or heir has been designated for this purpose, shall have the right to reacquire the property for the compensated amount or the fair market value of the property, whichever is less, before the property may be sold or transferred.

(d) The Board of Supervisors may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation.

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.