Bush order would limit property seizures

AP ^ | 23 June 2006 | Jennifer Loven

[YaYa123]

WASHINGTON - President Bush ordered Friday that federal agencies cannot seize private property except for public projects such as hospitals or roads. The move occurred on the one-year anniversary of a controversial Supreme Court decision that gave local governments broad power to bulldoze people's homes for commercial development.

The majority opinion in the Supreme Court case involving New London, Conn., homeowners limited the homeowners' rights by saying local governments could take private property for purely economic development-related projects because the motive was to bring more jobs and tax revenue to a city.

[YaYa123]

This is good news! Really good news!! Very smart move by the President, and the right thing to do.

So why is it buried on a Friday???

[af_vet_rr]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government - that's not going to help against states or cities, which are much more likely these days to take property for private development/tax purposes.

In other words, this might just be "feel good" and not actually protecting me from my city that wants to take my land and give it to somebody who will pay higher taxes

[r9etb]

that's not going to help against states or cities, which are much more likely these days to take property for private development/tax purposes.

Yup -- there's that nasty 10th Amendment getting in the way again....

[agooga]

I like that he's making a statement, though. Maybe it will do some good as an admonishment?

[YaYa123]

Here in Georgia:

"Gov. Perdue Signs Eminent Domain Legislation
Protects Georgians Against Abuse Of Eminent Domain
posted April 4, 2006

Tuesday in a ceremony at the State Capitol, Gov. Sonny Perdue signed the Landowner’s Bill of Rights and Private Property Protection Act (HB1313), protecting private landowners in Georgia against the abuse of eminent domain.

Gov. Perdue also signed HR1306, a constitutional amendment requiring that the condemnation of property be approved by a vote of the elected governing authority of the county or city in which the property is located.

“This legislation and constitutional amendment changes the whole presumption of eminent domain from the power of government to the power of the people,” said Gov. Perdue. “It is wrong for your house, your land and your property to be held in jeopardy at the sway of a powerful government.”

House Floor Leader Rich Golick and Senate Rules Chairman Don Balfour carried these measures in the House and Senate.

“I want to thank them for listening to the voice, the heart and the emotions of Georgians when we say that personal property rights are important to us,” said Gov. Perdue.


Fact Sheet: Legislation Protects Georgians Against Abuse of Eminent Domain

Georgians to Vote on Constitutional Amendment November 7, 2006

The Landowner’s Bill of Rights and Private Property Protection Act (HB1313)"

[GBA]

The Kelo v. New London ruling needs to be overturned.

[AntiGovernment]

God bless the President!

[antceecee]

Since this is a federal order I hope that it will prohibit cities and states from using federal money in the development of properties seized for non public use. It doesn't say this, but seems like the argument could be made.

[AntiGovernment]

The Kelo v. New London ruling needs to be overturned.

That would be a start. But we need to pass a constitutional amendment to guarantee the sanctity of private property.

[digger48]

It won't stop the DNR, NRCS, EPA, Army Corp of Engineers, or any number of other agencies from declaring that mudpuddle in your yard a "Designated Wetland" and forbid you from treading upon it.

[af_vet_rr]

I like that he's making a statement, though.

It's a statement that's too little, too late. He didn't come out immediately after the ruling, he didn't go around urging state governments to pass laws against confiscation of private property for private developers. Of course, before he was governor, he benefitted greatly from eminent domain, and he didn't exactly have a problem with it then.

This feels more like a political gimmie for the 2006 elections.

Maybe it will do some good as an admonishment?

Admonish who? You think a city council or state agency is going to give a damn what Bush thinks? Some developer is going to wine them and dine them and they are going to see dollar signs. They aren't going to say "oh, President Bush is now against using eminent domain for private development, we should be against it too".

These are politicians. They respect money and power. Your city government is not going to say "what would President Bush do?" They are going to say "how much more in taxes can you pay us?"

[af_vet_rr]

Was going to add this on why I feel it's too little, too late - I feel Bush dropped the ball on this.

This was one of the most crucial events regarding private property to happen in our lives.

The effects will not be truly felt for decades.

We were a nation that had some of the strongest private ownership laws in the world, and with one single ruling, that evaporated. All of the sudden, we could own private property until the city or state decided otherwise.

Our grandchildren and their grandchildren will be the ones that pay for this.

[Raycpa]

What do you propose Bush do? Declare Marshall Law and force local gov't to stop ?

[af_vet_rr]

It won't stop the DNR, NRCS, EPA, Army Corp of Engineers, or any number of other agencies from declaring that mudpuddle in your yard a "Designated Wetland" and forbid you from treading upon it.

Actually, I have quietly heard that some people fighting seizure of their lands for private development have tried using the environmentalists to help defend them.

Think about it - you and your spouse have your retirement home built, and then Wal-Mart comes along and wants to build where you are at, and the city is going to help them.

You go out, and you hit up the enviro groups, and if you are lucky, you might just find that you have some kind of Tree-Dwelling Speckled Swamp Frog that's on some endangered species list, and you can tell Wal-Mart and your city to take a hike. Granted, you won't be able to do much development on your land, but you've stopped others from taking it without your permission (and the tax writeoffs will probably be very nice).

[Live and let live conservative]

President Bush ordered Friday that federal agencies cannot seize private property except for public projects such as hospitals or roads...

LOL, except for public projects. So, private property cannot be seized except for public projects? The public good still trumps private property rights then, I assume. The public good trumps individual rights...

This is about as weak a stand as can be taken and anyone who thinks this is a strong position is hopeless.

[af_vet_rr]

What do you propose Bush do? Declare Marshall Law and force local gov't to stop ?

Of course not, but he could have spoken out against the ruling, rather than give us deafening silence until now. He could have went on TV and said "My fellow Americans, the Supreme Court has just issued a ruling that could affect every one of you. I urge you to raise this issue with your city and state governments, and to make sure they know you won't stand by and allow private property to be taken from one private entity and given to another private entity, simply because the second party can pay more taxes".

It's like another freeper said "He can travel around the nation building a case for a war, but he can't travel around the nation raising awareness of private property rights?"

[Uncle Hal]

How does this Federal order affect state and local seizures? This is a federal order. I think it has no effect except for seizures by the Feds.

[Raycpa]

You would rather he speak about what others should do or take what action he has the authority for? While we are at it, I think we are not giving enough blood to the blood banks or enough money to charity. Should we have the president give speeches on that ? How about divorce, child pregnancy?

[jla]

This appears to be on the same sincerity level as the proposal to amend our constitution to state that marriage be between a male and a female.
Don't remember that? Probably because something as significant as a Constitutional amendment was voted on less than a week after the President announced it with no town hall meetings, no address to the nation, no speeches encouraging citizens to call their senators.

There must be something going on this year for the President, after six years, to suddenly come out swinging in favor of traditional marriage and property rights and [enter issue favorable to conservatives and the Christian Right here].
I'm thinking something is occurring in November of this year, but would the President be doing all this just for Thanksgiving??