The bills are awaiting action, and the waiting might last forever.
Restricting eminent domain - PittsburghLIVE.com Two bills are awaiting action in Harrisburg -- and more legislation is in the works -- to protect property owners from a U.S. Supreme Court decision last month that allows governments to take private property in the name of economic development.
Rep. Tom Yewcic, D-Johnstown, introduced a pair of bills in the House that would bar governments from taking property from one private owner and giving it to another. Sen. Jeffrey Piccola of Dauphin County, a Republican gubernatorial hopeful, has a team of lawyers working on a bill for the Senate, as does Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park.
One interesting provision: If, after the property is taken, it is ever used for a "nonpublic purpose," the deed must go back to the original owner or the owner's heirs.
That's something to consider but would be silly in the real world. As property is taken with eminent domain, that property is purchased at "fair-market value." So the original land owners got their just compensation. They should NOT have the right to the property again should the public use be vacated.
I worry greatly about rights that last forever. We don't have a good track record in these matters. Look no further than the treatment of the Native Americans for some examples.
Consider the real world actions when a highway is built and then later turned into a bikeway and the path of public right of way can be greatly reduced or even given back in full. Even if it is only a generation away, the state should not have to go back to the original owner's heirs. The red tape alone would be a sizable hurdle so as to keep well enough alone and NOT return the property. Plus, the only one's to benefit are some lawyers.
The market place doesn't work that way. When I buy a car from you, I can sell it if I want to when I want to and to anyone who wants to buy it. I don't have to give back the car to seller of the car.
I do like the spirt of limiting eminent domain. But, we've got to be real.
The other avenue that needs serious attention is the "blight" designations. When a property is called "blighted" then it is easier for the state to take it. But with Murphy's actions (and that of city council too) most of downtown Pittsburgh is under the umbrella of "blight."
I want to see some blight reduction bills!
If I was mayor, or if I was a city council member, I'd get rid of all blight in the city or at least in my council district. Poof. With the stroke of a pen and a new designation -- the charge to take property with eminent domain got much more difficult.
To prove the point, consider this quote from the article:
When you run into (blighted) areas, a lot of times you'll find a lot of these properties have liens on them that exceed the value of the property," Gariti said. Often, the properties have been abandoned and the owners can't be found. "The only way they can be reused is if we clear the title to the property" by taking the land through eminent domain.
If owners of existing property can't be found -- often -- then I have no faith in the government to find past owners and heirs of past owners of property that was taken by eminent domain long ago. And, if the governement is mostly using eminent domain (ha, ha) to take these types of "abandoned property" then impossibible would be found within the suggested bill.
Mostly, I'd hate to see property owners hide from the government when they posses a net loss asset and then re-appear to the government in future generations when the property is being given away by the government.
We don't need more dumb laws with good intentions.
When property is no longer needed by the state, that property should be sold to the highest bidder.
Piccola said he's not sure he wants to prevent governments from using eminent domain as a development tool because it can help revitalize blighted areas.
Piccola is NOT sure. I am sure. I do want to prevent governement from using eminent domain.
Posts
2 comments:
Bills aim to restrict eminent domain
By Mike Wereschagin
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Two bills are awaiting action in Harrisburg -- and more legislation is in the works -- to protect property owners from a U.S. Supreme Court decision last month that allows governments to take private property in the name of economic development.
Rep. Tom Yewcic, D-Johnstown, introduced a pair of bills in the House that would bar governments from taking property from one private owner and giving it to another. Sen. Jeffrey Piccola of Dauphin County, a Republican gubernatorial hopeful, has a team of lawyers working on a bill for the Senate, as does Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park.
Pennsylvania is among nine states with legislation pending in their state legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Lawmakers in 27 states have either moved to curb the use of eminent domain or are considering measures that would do so, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington, D.C.-based libertarian law firm.
Yewcic introduced his bills July 1, eight days after the Supreme Court issued its decision.
The case, Kelo v. New London, involved 15 homeowners who refused to make way for a massive redevelopment project in the depressed town of New London, Conn. The Institute for Justice represented the homeowners and has since started a grassroots movement, called the Castle Coalition, to support state efforts like Pennsylvania's.
Five Supreme Court justices sided with New London, saying the "public use" clause in the Fifth Amendment allows governments to take property even if the property won't become publicly owned -- for parks or roads, for example. Public use, in the court's opinion, includes the public benefit from private redevelopment projects that bring in more jobs and more tax money.
"That's nothing more than legalized plunder," Yewcic said. "This whole decision is un-American."
Justice John Paul Stevens however, writing for the five-justice majority, said that nothing in the court's June 23 decision "precludes any state from placing further restrictions" on eminent domain.
Yewcic's bills would put three restrictions on the use of eminent domain in Pennsylvania:
# The government wouldn't be allowed to take the property from one private owner and give it to another.
# The purpose of using eminent domain could not be for increasing a municipality's tax base.
# If, after the property is taken, it is ever used for a "nonpublic purpose," the deed must go back to the original owner or the owner's heirs.
The House Committee on State Government has scheduled public hearings for Yewcic's bills in Harrisburg on Aug. 9 and in Philadelphia on Aug. 31. A hearing in Pittsburgh will be scheduled for Sept. 20 or 21, Yewcic said.
"The issue is something we're very interested in," said Steve Miskin, spokesman for the state House Republican Caucus. "I think the Yewcic bills will be the catalyst. ... We're definitely going to take steps to protect people's property."
Pittsburgh has a long, storied history of using eminent domain for economic development. The land for PPG Place, Gateway Center and Mellon Arena, among others, were bought using eminent domain, and the land was then passed on to private companies.
The debate still rages over whether it's been a boon or a bust. Pittsburgh native John Tierney recently wrote a column in The New York Times decrying Pittsburgh leaders' use of the power. Mayor Tom Murphy responded with a column of his own, defending the practice and saying Tierney should apologize.
Murphy threatened to use eminent domain in his bid to remake Downtown with a $522 million shopping complex along Fifth and Forbes avenues. Owners who stood to lose their buildings organized an opposition group, and the project died in November 2000 when the complex's main prospective tenant, a Nordstrom department store, pulled out.
Joseph Gariti, general counsel for the city's Urban Redevelopment Authority, said eminent domain is a useful tool to revitalize blighted areas, and it usually isn't used to take property from an owner who doesn't want to sell.
"When you run into (blighted) areas, a lot of times you'll find a lot of these properties have liens on them that exceed the value of the property," Gariti said. Often, the properties have been abandoned and the owners can't be found. "The only way they can be reused is if we clear the title to the property" by taking the land through eminent domain.
One such redevelopment project ran into a snag when the owner of the Garden Theatre in the North Side, which shows pornographic movies, refused to sell his property for redevelopment. The URA and the owner, who is the last holdout among 41 properties the city wants to raze in the depressed area, are awaiting a decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court decision -- which deals with the right to due process and just compensation as required by the Fifth Amendment -- won't affect the case because the Garden's owner is fighting the URA by claiming his First Amendment right to free speech is being infringed upon.
Allowing the government to take property to lure in businesses and homeowners is "contrary to what the framers of the state and U.S. constitutions had in mind when they created eminent domain," Piccola said. Kelo v. New London "brought to everyone's attention that public use can mean anything, as long as its couched in economic development."
Piccola said he's not sure he wants to prevent governments from using eminent domain as a development tool because it can help revitalize blighted areas. He is considering adding a provision in his bill that would change how people are paid for their property, though. Rather than paying them what the property is worth now, they might be entitled to be paid what the property is worth to the new developer, he said.
Piccola said he expects to have a draft bill ready in a few weeks.
Mike Wereschagin can be reached at mwereschagin@tribweb.com or (412) 391-0927.
Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania
3863 Union Deposit Road #223
Harrisburg, PA 17109
1-800-774-4487
www.lppa.org
For Immediate Release:
Date: 07/029/2005
For more information contact:
Doug Leard (Media Relations) or David Jahn (Chair) at 1-800-R-RIGHTS
Libertarians Focus on Eminent Domain
The Libertarian Party will help any State legislator drafting a bill to remedy the recent Supreme Court decision on eminent domain. “We would like to ensure that any eminent domain legislation properly protects the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,” said Ken Crippen, Chair of the Legislative Action Committee of the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania. " We urge any legislator that values civil liberties and personal property to contact us for help in writing legislation to remedy the damage born out of this errant Supreme Court decision."
The United States Supreme Court betrayed the constitutional sanctity of property rights in its Kelo v. City of New London ruling. The court found 5-4 that local governments hold the power to widely interpret what “public use” means for their purposes. As witnessed by the Kelo case, this expanded power comes at the expense of tax paying property owners.
“The Supreme Court said local governments can seize private property and transfer it to developers of shopping centers, office complexes, hotels and sporting arenas for no more reason than the wishful hope of an increase in local tax revenues” said David Jahn, Chair of the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania. “The ‘public use’ clause of the Fifth Amendment was just blighted by corporate welfare.”
The Libertarian Party plans to make eminent domain and the protection of private property rights a key campaign issue in 2006.
The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States with over 600 officials serving in office throughout the nation. Please visit www.LP.org or www.LPPA.org for more information on the Libertarian Party.
Post a Comment