Senate Needs to Pass Bill That Would Protect Property Rights
Bipartisan legislation that withholds federal funding to communities that commit eminent domain abuse earn House approval.
The freedom to own and protect one’s private property is foundational to our country — our Constitution explicitly protects private property rights.
The House last week approved my legislation, H.R. 1433, the Private Property Rights Protection Act, to protect every citizen’s right to private property, not just the most powerful or profitable.
In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Kelo v. City of New London that private property could be “condemned” for the sole purpose of implementing a local government’s redevelopment plan. In this case, the city seized Susette Kelo’s home to give the property to the Pfizer Corp., but the new owner was unable to obtain funding and the project was never developed.
Practically, this means that government could seize private property if the redevelopment of the property would yield more tax revenue. Prior to the ruling, eminent domain was legally restricted to only projects with a clear public use, such as roads and schools.
I worked with Congresswoman Maxine Waters, a Democrat from California, to forge a bipartisan coalition to pass this legislation. The Private Property Rights Protection Act has strong support across the political spectrum. Groups speaking out against the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo include the NAACP, AARP, religious organizations, and the American Farm Bureau.
The Kelo decision tramples our individual rights, giving government more power over Americans’ lives. This is a slippery slope that we can’t let continue, and my legislation will restore eminent domain to its proper, limited role.
My legislation denies states and localities that commit eminent domain abuse all federal economic development funds for a period of two years. The bill also gives property owners a legal recourse to fight economic development takings.
But Americans across the country have already fallen victim to abuse of eminent domain as expanded under Kelo’s definition of public use.
As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said in her stinging dissent, “nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz Carlton, any home with a shopping center, or any farm with a factory.”
This decision disproportionately affects and harms the economically disadvantaged, as well as farmers and ranchers who own and lease significant amounts of land on which they depend for their livelihoods. Wisconsin farms are particularly vulnerable. The fair market value of farmland is less than residential or commercial property, which means it doesn’t generate as much property tax as homes or offices.
Additionally, houses of worship and other religious institutions will be vulnerable targets for eminent domain actions under schemes that disfavor non-profit, tax-exempt property owners.
The House acted to ensure that Americans’ homes, family farms, and small businesses are safe from unjust government seizure. The Senate should pass this bill and restore the government’s power of eminent domain to its limited, proper role
St. Swithin
2:49 pm on Sunday, March 4, 2012
Wow. I can actually agree with Rep S. on this one. Kelo was an absurd decision on the part of the Supreme Court. I am glad Congress is trying to limit the use of eminent domain.
Gofaq Uurslf
3:24 pm on Sunday, March 4, 2012
So hopefully this might one day keep Walmarts, aka Minority Magnets, out of our small communities.
Say What?
11:38 pm on Sunday, March 4, 2012
Nate,
I can't quite understand why you folks bring this topic wherever you go. Lets talk chickens and eggs here... Are the Walmarts, or "Minority Magnets" as you call them, drawing minorities to the neighborhood, or are all those people within a local driving distance (the neighborhood) just coming to a place that they can afford (lets not talk long term/short term "afford" here). Would it be equally right to say that a Sendik's is a "Plutocratic Magnet" of a "cracker magnet" or a "christian magnet", or fill in whatever dumb thing you would like? If sendik's was in my neighborhood, I wouldn't be able to afford shopping there. If Walmart was in my neighborhood, I wouldn't shop there but for a few items that I can't get elsewhere at prices I can stand. Otherwise, I would go to the "middle class magnet"...Pig, Pick n Save, Sentry, ALDI (dang, that might be a poor people place). well, you get the idea, or you don't.
Bob McBride
6:27 am on Monday, March 5, 2012
Fortunately, (or not), some folks decided to dedicate a website to the "peopleofwallmart"(.com) for the purpose of posting pics of some of the more unusual looking shoppers. A quick trip through what's there will clearly demonstrate that it's no more a "minority magnet" than any other establishment. It also might make you wonder if it might be wise to expand a bit upon the old "no shoes, no shirt - no service" retail dress code - but that's not really germane to this discussion.
Gofaq Uurslf
3:30 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012
@Say what....excellent question; let me answer that for you. When Walmart is sticking a building in every suburb around the "core" and a large bit of the crowd that comes is black, it makes you raise an eyebrow. Also, there are already existing locations by them yet they come by the masses. Again you have to wonder. Look in local papers at the police blotter, and my superstitions are justified. One other thing, how come the Germantown location (maybe others), has a fried chicken area.....besides the Deli?!
As a disclaimer, I shopped Walmart regularly for a while until Woodmans opened. What would you know? They put it right on the fringe, so all sorts can come to their store. Again, past police blotters have proven my point. They even have order slips for the razor blades so you can't jack them.
Say What?
9:03 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012
Thanks Bob!
michaelm
11:34 am on Monday, March 5, 2012
Back to the point, my only disappointment with the new possible law which I do support is that it is not strong enough.
We need strong regulations preventing government seizure of private land or property even if it's in the best interest of the government.
Public interest and government interests are not the same thing. Government officials have been abusing eminent domain as political payback, to punish detractors, to steal wealth and to protect greed for decades.
It needs to be much more difficult for the government to take away our property and there must be compelling and effective ways for the ordinary citizen, including the poorer ones to fight back in public.
Otherwise this is just one more tool for bureaucrats and elected officials alike to create fear, dominion, and exertion of unfair control over a powerless property owner. It discourages improvement and investment if you never know when big brother may come to take away what you live on or business you have built.
Smaller businesses should support this too, otherwise you never know when the political powers change and they come to take your business or home claiming public interest but really to punish you or pay off a new political ally.
Don Niederfrank
11:40 am on Monday, March 5, 2012
"I worked with Congresswoman Maxine Waters..." You'll excuse me. I'm going outside to look in the sky for Jesus, because evidently the Kingdom has come! :-)
Mary
7:39 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012
Is anyone familier with The National Registry and Land Patents? I have heard of a bit of those but not sure if it has some connection with this issue.
Born Free
10:55 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012
Good thing Maxine isn't to bright.
As it is the EPA can abscond any size piece of land if it has even occasional standing water on it claiming it to be a wet land and when they don't directly abscond it from private property owners for pennies on the dollar they will declare it to be undevelopable.
There's also something new called Sustainable Community Developement (or some title similar to that) which is a land grab. When private property owe's the city too much back taxes the city takes it. Normally that would be ok as long as the city sells the property back into the private sector, however, now, cities and states that choose to participate in the federal Sustainable Developement project take the federal dollars to pay off those back taxes and consequently have to allow international buyers exclusive rights to buy that property at below market value even if that is only $1. Yes, our federal government is in no other terms taking land away from us for any future residential or commercial developement by private sector persons of the U.S.. Foreign owners of the property are not required to be or become U.S. citizens. AAAnd those new owners get massive tax breaks to do their business here as an extra insentive to buy the property.
This is happening all over America. Thousands of acres of state owned lands and forest are being turned over to the fed for the fed dollars.
Dilberately crash an economy then no one can afford to own anything. "Sharing the wealth".
Born Free
11:06 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012
Oh and by the way, those foreign interests that establish a business on that land are not required to hire U.S. Citizens -- NO EQUAL OPPORTUNITY laws apply to them!!!
David Montemurri
3:40 pm on Tuesday, March 6, 2012
This is a good step in the right direction, Individual property rights are the cornerstone of this nation.
John T. Pokrandt
1:35 pm on Thursday, March 8, 2012
One of the few times I am in agreement with Sensenbrenner