Posted on 11/09/2005 9:46:42 AM PST by wmichgrad
LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Governments could not force Michigan landowners to give up their property for private economic development projects under measures approved Wednesday by the state Senate.
The legislation, approved 36-2, is aimed at strengthening the rights of property owners in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that a Connecticut town could force homeowners to relinquish property for a commercial project. It now goes to the House.
The Senate voted 35-3 to approve a separate measure that would change the state constitution to bar governments from forcing private landowners to sell their property if the land will be used for economic development or increased tax revenues. The amendment needs a two-thirds vote in the House to get on the 2006 statewide ballot.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling did not affect Michigan because the state Supreme Court ruled last year that economic development projects don't constitute a public use under the 1963 state constitution.
Lawmakers said they went ahead with the change because the makeup of the state's highest court could change.
The legislation is aimed at codifying in the constitution the Michigan Supreme Court's ruling. It would allow governments to seize property to build highways and oil pipelines or clean up severely blighted neighborhoods.
.
The eminent domain legislation and constitutional amendment are Senate Bills 693-94 and Senate Joint Resolution E.
.
On the Net:
Michigan Legislature: http://www.legislature.mi.gov
Michigan Supreme Court: http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt
Good, but I wish I knew who the 2 and 3 jokers are?
If I was betting, my money says Gilda Jacobs, Liz Brater, and Bob Emerson.
I almost called that one perfect. Two of the three (Emerson and Brater). Bernero is becoming Lansing mayor, so I should have guessed that one.
The Supreme Court is the SLL in the context that they can call fair and foul on any laws that are made, however, in the marijuana case (gonzalez v. raiche) they were simply saying that the U.S. Congress' legislation could constitutionally take precedent over the State legislation using the ICC. It would be up to the U.S. Congress to create legislation nulling the state legislation, and then the Supreme Court calling whether the U.S. Congress' legislation is all right.
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.