Introduced
by
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 Committee on Transportation
Which reported out a version of the resolution that would have given local governments more leeway to take private property from one private entity and give it to another than the introduced version, and possibly more than current law under the Hathcock decision. The version was not adopted by the Senate "committee of the whole" but replaced with the substitute described below.
Substitute offered
To replace the previous version of the resolution with one that somewhat narrows the “takings” prohibitions proposed by the original version. Private property could be taken from one person and transferred to another, but not for purposes of “economic development” or increasing tax revenues. If the taking is for purposes of eradicating urban “blight” then the burden of proof would be on the condemning authority to demonstrate “by clear and convincing evidence” that this is a public use. In other cases the condemning authority would only have to meet the less stringent “preponderance of the evidence” standard. As under current law property could still be condemned and transferred to a private entity to advance “the instrumentalities of commerce,” such as utiilty line easements, for example, but under Senate Bill 693 these circumstances would be defined much less loosely.
The substitute passed by voice vote
Amendment offered
by
To require a unit of government that condemns an individual's principle residence to take it for public use to pay the person at least 125 percent of the fair market value.
The amendment passed by voice vote
Passed in the Senate 35 to 3 (details)
To place before voters in the next general election a Constitutional amendment to restrict but not eliminate the use of eminent domain by state or local governments to take private property from one person and transfer it to another. This could not be done for purposes of “economic development” or for increasing tax revenues. If the taking is for purposes of eradicating urban “blight” then the burden of proof would be on the condemning authority to demonstrate “by clear and convincing evidence” that this is a public use. In other cases the condemning authority would only have to meet the less stringent “preponderance of the evidence” standard. If a taking is of an individual's principle residence the person would have to be paid at least 125 percent of the fair market value.
Referred to the Committee on Government Operations
Amendment offered
To make clear that if the taking is for purposes of eradicating urban “blight” then the condemning authority would have to demonstrate that the particular property is blighted, not just the area in general.
The amendment passed by voice vote
Passed in the House 106 to 0 (details)
To place before voters in the next general election a Constitutional amendment to restrict but not eliminate the use of eminent domain by state or local governments to take private property from one person and transfer it to another. This could not be done for purposes of “economic development” or for increasing tax revenues. If the taking is for purposes of eradicating urban “blight” then the burden of proof would be on the condemning authority to demonstrate “by clear and convincing evidence” that the particular property is being taken for a public use, i.e. that the particular property is blighted. In other cases the condemning authority would only have to meet the less stringent “preponderance of the evidence” standard. If a taking is of an individual's principle residence the person would have to be paid at least 125 percent of the fair market value.
Passed in the Senate 31 to 6 (details)
