I found this article at yahoo today, it tells of the backlash from the recent Supreme Court ruling that commercial interests could seize private property.
By Emily Bazar, USA TODAY Wed Aug 3, 7:17 AM ET
States across the country are rushing to pass laws to counter the potential impact of a
U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that allows state and local governments to seize homes for private development. (Related story: Ruling may doom homes)
ADVERTISEMENT
In Alabama Wednesday, Gov. Bob Riley will sign a law that prohibits the state, cities and counties from taking private property for retail, office, commercial, industrial or residential development. "We don't like anybody messing with our dogs, our guns, our hunting rights or trying to take property from us," says state Sen. Jack Biddle, a sponsor of the law.
Delaware also has changed its law since the high court ruling on eminent domain. Legislatures in at least eight other states are weighing proposals this year. More may be coming. And Congress is considering action.
"When legislatures start new sessions in January, I expect the majority of states to take up bills that would restrict the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes," said Larry Morandi, environmental program director for the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The issue has spawned an unusual alliance among conservatives opposed to the principle of government seizing private property and liberals worried that poor people would be the most likely victims.
The actions are a swift response to a Supreme Court decision in a Connecticut case. For the first time, it ruled that condemnation of private property solely for economic development was constitutional.
In that case, the justices accepted New London, Conn., officials' plan to raze homes to make way for a hotel, office complexes and a marina.
But the court left the door open for states to limit the use of eminent domain for economic development.
In Washington, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, said his office received more calls from constituents angry about this case than it did for the Supreme Court ruling that limited displays of the Ten Commandments on public property. Cornyn is proposing a bill to bar cities and counties from using federal funds for economic development projects that involve seized property.
Rep. Maxine Waters (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., a liberal who rarely supports Republican bills, has signed onto two GOP bills and proposed two of her own. "The people who get hurt are the many poor people and working people who don't think they can fight City Hall," she said.
Paul Farmer, executive director of the American Planning Association, said eminent domain for private projects can revitalize cities. "It should remain a tool that would clearly not be used very often," he said.
States protecting private property, Alabama likes their dogs
-
Dregor Thule
- Super Poster!
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 8:59 pm
- Gender: Male
- XBL Gamertag: Xathlak
- PSN ID: dregor77
- Location: Oakville, Ontario
-
Bubba Grizz
- Super Poster!
- Posts: 6121
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:52 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Green Bay, Wisconsin
-
Arborealus
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 3417
- Joined: September 21, 2002, 5:36 am
- Contact:
-
Xatrei
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2104
- Joined: July 22, 2002, 4:28 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Boringham, AL
Don't get me wrong, this is a great piece of legislation, and one that few would argue against (mainly those whose souls are owned by big real estate developers). Most liberals and conservatives favor protecting property rights, although for very different reasons. My comment was directed at the "God, guns and glory" sentiment in the quote from Jack Biddle that is shared by 90% of his constituents.
"When I was a kid, my father told me, 'Never hit anyone in anger, unless you're absolutely sure you can get away with it.'" - Russel Ziskey