Hands-off my house
By JR Hoeft | Thursday, February 17th, 2011 | PolicyOK, my friend Steve Rossie of the Family Foundation really didn’t really need to lobby me that hard because we’ve been worried about eminent domain issues here at BD for years.
However, perhaps the best chance to pass eminent domain legislation in the General Assembly and move forward with the constitutional amendment process has arrived.
What Rossie reminded me of yesterday is that the vote is effectively here and Senators need to be contacted today to be encouraged to support HJ 693 – a bipartisan bill that amends the state constitution and defines just exactly what the government can and cannot do with respect to private property. The amendment reads:
(i) no private property shall be damaged or taken except for public use without just compensation to its owner for the property taken and for damages to the residue caused by the taking or damaging and (ii) that no more private property may be taken than that which is necessary to achieve the stated public use. Just compensation shall be no less than the value of the property taken and the damages to the residue caused by the taking. A public service company, public service corporation, or railroad exercises the power of eminent domain for public use when such exercise is for the authorized provision of utility, common carrier, or railroad services. In all other cases, a taking or damaging of private property is not for public use if the primary use is for private gain, private benefit, private enterprise, increasing jobs, increasing tax revenue, or economic development, except for the elimination of a public nuisance existing on the property (emph. added). The condemnor bears the burden of proving that the use is public, without a presumption that it is.
Specifically, this amendment says the government cannot cause your land to be seized for someone else’s private gain. An absolute no-brainer, right? Wrong. Government has done this and its power to do so needs to be checked.
In Virginia, this needs to be done via a constitutional amendment.
Because of our convoluted system to amend the Virginia constitution (much like other odd quirks of our government like a single-term governor, but I digress) 21 senators need to vote to pass this amendment in order for it to move on to a second vote next year and ultimately a ballot question posed to us, the Virginia voter, in a general election – likely 2012. So, if you are so inclined, with the imminent vote on eminent domain, today would be a good day to contact your Senator by email or phone. You can find out who your Senator is, in case you’re not sure, here.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
7 Responses to "Hands-off my house"
Did my part. Although one legislator told me last year that the Dems in the Senate are really opposed to this bill as well as some city governments. Is there a relatively easy way to find out what your city is lobbying for and against? I do speak to city council members on occasion, but it would be nice to just have a list of what the city is lobbying for during the legislative session.
One of the most important amendments that could be proposed in Virginia. Kudos for Sen. Obenshain for continuing the fight to protect our private property rights. Unfortunately, my Senator is rather likely to oppose doing the right thing.
Does anyone have any examples of the government using eminent domain for private gain? I’m just curious as to how that term (“private gain”) is being defined.
Here are a couple examples:
http://www.vapropertyrights.org/our_stories.html
Another great example is in Hampton Roads along I-64 and Mercury Blvd. where the land, from what I recall, was effectively rezoned, owners forced to sell, and now it’s a place for retail.
This is a good fight for reasons small and large. If it doesn’t succeed this time let’s try again. The left will be outraged by the notion that the govt can’t seize what they want to seize for any reason du jour.
Val: you might be surprised as to how “the left” feels about the proposed amendment. The primary beneficiaries of eminent domain for economic development purposes are of course big business and developers. They aren’t exactly “the left’s” constituencies.
As I recall, we passed a statute to this effect — no eminent domain for economic development purposes — a few years ago, right after the Supreme Court case that generated all the attention on eminent domain issues. Not quite clear why we also need a constitutional amendment.
SV,
You’re right, big business and developers are not the normal constituency of the left. However, the left is very fond of their tax revenue base, esp. when they can soak big business and developers for it and not the voters directly. That was the reason, BTW, that the left was so apoplectic over the Citizens United decision. They don’t want big business to be able to fight back. Accordingly, the left opposes legislation that might curtail the ability to increase tax revenue by converting residential property to commercial property, esp. if the residential property is blighted and therefore enjoying a very low tax assessment.
As to why we need a Constitutional amendment when we already have a law is because there is nothing to prevent the current GA or a future GA from repealing the law or granting an exception to the law. A Constitutional Amendment precludes that. “No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe when the Legislature is in session.”
Also, the reason that you see so much legal wrangling over “just compensation” is because the government typically only wants to pay the lowest appraised value of property, not the intrinsic market value. That is why the use of the word “damaged” is so critical in this legislation. Suppose you have a house with a one-acre front yard. The state condemns half of your front yard to widen the road in front of you to four lanes. Instead of having a large front yard with a house set-back 200 feet from a two lane road, you will now have a house only 100 feet from a four-laner. However, the state is not going to want to pay you for the actual decrease in your resale value. They will try to pay you only the apportioned value of half an acre. In such a case, you could be losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in home value and be offered tens of thousands in compensation.
JR said it best: “Hands off my house.”
Leave your response