2005 House Joint Resolution P (Ban taking private property for private use)

[Comments on this legislation] [Post new comment] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Rep. Leon Drolet (R) on September 13, 2005, to place before voters in the next general election a Constitutional amendment to prohibit the use of eminent domain by state or local governments to take private property and transfer it to a private entity for the primary benefit of that private entity, rather than for “the use or benefit” of the public. This would place in the Constitution a standard similar to the state Supreme Court’s 2005 ruling in Wayne County v. Hathcock, which reversed its 1981 “Poletown” ruling, and held that a government taking is not justified just because a different use of the property might increase government tax revenues. Note: The 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London held that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit such takings, but that states are free to prohibit them anyway.
- Referred to the House Government Operations Committee on September 13, 2005.

Most Recent Comments

1) Teeth [by Anonymous Citizen on October 4, 2005]
Problems -

(1) The taking of private property and transfer to a commercial interest has been determined to be a public use/purpose. Your restriction allows Wal-Mart and Meijer; it just restricts new housing on the site in question.

(2) This is probably unconstitutional. Regardless, at least historically, the owners of property that has been condemned usually don't fight for more money for the reason that the jury will be made up of the very taxpayers who are footing the bill.

(3) You might have something, here. But what will happen is that some smart lawyer will simply draw up a "lease" that will transfer all ownership rights other than title. Money players will simply contract the property based on a promise to transfer title after the encumbered period has passed.
Reply

Line

2) Joint Resolution P Teeth [by Mike Hignite on October 4, 2005]
Let's put some teeth into this:

1. Property taken for public use via eminent domain may only be used for public purposes, for which the public will have physical access.
2. Property seized via eminent domain will be compensated at three times the fair market value as determined in a jury trial.
3. The owner or heirs of property seized by eminient domain shall be able to redeem it at the amount of compensation originally received should the property offer it for sale to any party for twenty-five years after the seizure.

That should slow down the land thieves oppressing citizens.
Reply

Line

3) MY property! [by Anonymous Citizen on September 22, 2005]
Good move. Think the members of the USSC were sitting on their brains when they issued this decision.
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation