State, federal efforts directed at undoing Supreme Court private property
decision

Friday, August 05, 2005


Efforts on both the federal and state level are taking aim at undoing a
recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that weakens private property rights.

In the controversial case, Kelo (and others) vs. New London, Conn., the
court ruled 5-4 that the City of New London could use eminent domain to
seize private property in a city neighborhood for a commercial development
project.

The justification behind this use of eminent domain was that the project
promised more jobs and more tax revenue for the city.

Although the neighborhood was not blighted, New London argued that the
commercial complex, which would complement an adjoining Pfizer Corp.
research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum, was important to the
city's financial well-being.

The ruling sent shock waves throughout the nation and sparked opposition
within the court itself. In her dissenting opinion, then-U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Sandra Day O'Conner warned that "the specter of condemnation" hangs
over all property - including farms.

When the decision was announced in late June, Bob Stallman, president of the
American Farm Bureau Federation, said the organization would work in the
legislative arena to determine what could be done to limit the effects of
the ruling.

"Apparently, no one's home, or farm, and ranch land is safe from government
seizure because of this ruling," he said in a statement immediately after
the ruling was announced.

On the federal level, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., last week joined Reps.
Henry Bonilla, R-Texas and Stephanie Herseth, D-South Dakota, in introducing
legislation titled the "Strengthening the Ownership of Private Property
Act."

Dubbed STOPP, the bipartisan bill would discourage local or state
governments from taking property from one private party and transferring it
to another private party if the government can generate more tax revenue or
other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

In situations like that, STOPP would prevent local governments and states
from receiving federal economic assistance on all economic development
projects - not just those where the abuses of private property rights occur.


The legislation would also make state and local governments subject to the
Uniform Relocation Act, which provides fair market value and moving expenses
for citizens relocated by abuses of private property.

Goodlatte said the House Agriculture Committee would hold hearings on the
issue in early September.

STOPP goes further than several other bills recently introduced in Congress
that would deny federal funding for specific projects where eminent domain
would be used in abuse of private-property rights.

Rick Krause, senior director of regulatory relations for the American Farm
Bureau, said the organization supports STOPP because it has a heavy spending
enforcement hammer.

"It would make state and local governments think twice about exercising
similar Kelo-type eminent domain actions," he said.

But Krause pointed out that eminent domain is really "a creature of state
law" and for that reason, changes also need to be made at the state level.

The organization is currently putting the finishing touches on a broad-based
campaign to undo Kelo.

As part of that campaign, it is gearing up to work with state Farm Bureaus
to get legislation or constitution amendments introduced and passed in every
state that needs it. Key to this effort: developing model legislation that
can be used at the state level.

"This is a huge issue for our members," said Krause. "We've heard from a lot
of them about the need to do something about this Supreme Court decision,
and we're responding to their concerns."

In Oregon, HB3505 proposes to amend Oregon statute to prevent state and
local governments from using eminent domain to seize private property unless
it would serve public use. The land involved in such an eminent domain
seizure would be owned and used by the public.

David Hunnicutt, executive director of property-rights group Oregonians in
Action, said the bill would stop local governments from acting as a broker
in taking land from one private owner and transferring it to another private
owner.

"We haven't had a problem so far in Oregon with anything like this," he
said. "But we want to nip it in the bud."

Hunnicutt said his group would be very supportive of STOPP or any similar
federal legislation that would make it more difficult for local governments
to act like New London.

"It's completely against the principles of private-property ownership," he
said, referring to the Kelo decision.

In California, a twist to this controversy involves Yolo County's efforts to
use eminent domain to protect 17,300-acre Conaway Ranch from being developed
and to also protect the ranch's water rights.

An attorney for the ownership group, which is led by a Sacramento developer,
said the group is not planning to develop the ranch or sell its water
rights.

Meanwhile, on the national level, the U.S. House of Representatives on June
30 passed a resolution that expressed the House's "grave disapproval of the
the Kelo decision."