The coming fight over property rights
By Norman Leahy | Tuesday, October 18th, 2011 | Policy, Politics, VirginiaDuring the 2011 General Assembly session, legislators gave their approval to a constitutional amendment that would strengthen property rights in the commonwealth. As with all constitutional amendments, a measure must pass through two General Assembly sessions, with an election in between, before it can go before voters in a referendum. The first hurdle — initial passage — has been cleared. The election is almost upon us. But those who really aren’t keen on a property rights amendment passing a second time are preparing the battle space:
The City of Manassas is joining other localities to wage a campaign against a proposed constitutional amendment in the Virginia legislature that will affect everything from whether state roads are built to the city’s ability to shut down streets for its Christmas parade, according to officials and lobbyists.
It likely will also cause a massive outbreak of cooties in the courthouse, but the hyperbole on display in the WaPo piece is just a sample of the kinds of arguments local governments will use in their attempt to derail the amendment.
But what’s interesting, or criminal, depending upon your point of view, is how much taxpayer money local governments will use to fight against stronger private property rights.
Manassas is going to pay Thomas Dick $1,500 a month to argue against the property rights amendment and other issues. Other localities have long done the same, and will do so again next year. Back in 2009, in a previous attempt to get a property rights amendment out of the General Assembly, a bevy of local governments, government agencies, trade associations and private companies came out swinging. The flyer their lobbyists distributed during a committee hearing on the amendment can be seen nearby (click on it to enlarge).
Local governments against property rights
It’s very likely these same entities, and possibly more, will be doing whatever is necessary to scuttle the property rights amendment next year. It’s their right to do so…though most of them go about it on your dime.
As Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli noted on his Facebook page, this coming fight is all the more reason to make sure the right people are in place in the Virginia Senate:
You might be asking yourself – what member of the General Assembly would oppose protecting property rights?
Well – there are many, including, over the years, some Republicans. Critically this year, Virginia’s own State Senate Majority leader, the ever blunt Democrat Dick Saslaw said – not once, but twice – on the floor of the Senate that property rights have no place in Virginia’s Constitution.
It’s important that between now and election day you make sure your delegate and senate candidates are committed to voting for the amendment next session, even if (when) their local governments come screaming to them not to vote to protect property rights.
Sen. Mark Obenshain, who picked up right where Cuccinelli left off on the issue in the state Senate, offers more insights on last year’s legislative battle over the amendment in the latest issue of Bearing Drift Magazine.
It hasn’t been the biggest of campaign issues, and even when a Kelo-type case is burning up the news, most people think eminent domain abuse is something that happens to other people (usually those who are either poor, live in rural areas or lack political connections).
But it should be. Without property rights, every other right we enjoy is meaningless (think about it and you’ll see how true that statement is).
So ask your candidates: “do you support the property rights amendment?” Their answers will tell you more about their views on liberty and limited government than a mountain of position papers and tweets ever could.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Norm Leahy has written about Virginia and national politics online since 2002, beginning with One Man's Trash (OMT), and continuing through Bacon's Rebellion (both the blog and the e-zine), Sic Semper Tyrannis, NBC12's Decision Virginia, Richmond.com and Tertium Quids. He is the chief blogger at "The Score" and a producer of "The Score" radio show as well as being a Washington Examiner contributor.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
37 Responses to "The coming fight over property rights"
Norm,
Thanks for calling attention to this. If the amendment is HJ693, it passed both the House and the Senate by huge margins, so much that you have to wonder what is wrong with Ticer, Whipple, and the other pinkos who voted against it. That raises the question: why in the world are local jurisdictions spending taxpayer money trying to overturn what is obviously a very popular amendment?
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?111+bil+HJ0693
In addition to Southside, I have property in York County and property owners are going through a struggle with the local Board of Supervisors who are changing the zoning ordinances to restrict agriculture, aquaculture, chickens, trailer parking, waterman work boats, etc.. The draft proposal (http://www.yorkcounty.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=aOVm9hHcTYs%3d&tabid=1900) contains an interesting statement: “In the event a particular use is not listed in this chapter as a permitted use, a specially permitted use, or an administratively permitted use, and such use is not listed in section 24.1-307 as a prohibited use and is not prohibited by law, then such use shall not be permitted unless the zoning administrator shall determine whether a materially similar use exists in this chapter.” This statement pretty much prohibits everything that is outside of what is already being restricted.
Also at the public hearing where the YC Planning Commission reviewed this draft, there was mention of UN Agenda 21 language starting to creep into local zoning ordinances as well as in property rights legislation.
Of course some cities will oppose this, as it restricts their ability to take private property and makes it more expensive for them to do so. Definitely need to keep an eye on what Va Beach does.
well, look at it this way: localities have less $ to spend on lobbying this year.
This proposed amendment is for the benefit of commercial land owners who will be able to make arguments for higher awards based on potential future use. But of course, the real politics is to increase anger of those who fear their home may be taken. Fact is, nearly 100% of the benefit goes to existing wealthy commercial landowners, and 100% of the added cost will be paid by the taxpayer. Politics once again trumps the public interest. In fact, the political exaggeration is already in high gear in support of this amendment which is best described as welfare for lawyers and rich commercial landowners.
In deference to Mr. Barrett, I strongly disagree that the importance of who pays and who gets, tax-wise that is, is immaterial to focal point of this legislation. The burden of whether or not the condemnation is for the public good, exclusive of economic development, would become the burden of the local government or agency seeking eminent domain condemnation. If anything, this action may cause developers to take a larger risk percentage in public-private partnership arenas.
Don’t you love Public-Private Partnerships? Working together to take away our private property rights.
Well, most of the posters herein have clearly not read the amendment which has nothing to do with whether condemnation occurs or not. It just makes it possible for lawyers and rich commercial owners to make a case for a larger award pst condemnation based on some hypothetical future use. Of course, when this occurs, the general tax payer will bear the cost of the higher awards for right of way, utility easements, and public projects. So, don’t ever let Bearing Drift say its members work for the taxpayer; fact is, if the small consensus reflected herein is the general judgement of the page, it works strictly for the rich and the wealty owners of commercial land who will be the prime beneficiaries of this amendment if it passes.
Well, most of the posters herein have clearly not read the amendment which has nothing to do with whether condemnation occurs or not. It just makes it possible for lawyers and rich commercial owners to make a case for a larger award post condemnation based on some hypothetical future use. Of course, when this occurs, the general tax payer will bear the cost of the higher awards for right of way, utility easements, and public projects. So, don’t ever let Bearing Drift say its members work for the taxpayer; fact is, if the small consensus reflected herein is the general judgement of the page, it works strictly for the rich and the wealty owners of commercial land who will be the prime beneficiaries of this amendment if it passes.
A double post by MB is like a double barreled shotgun blast to the head.
Maybe Mike should talk to Creigh Deeds, who said this when the amendment passed the Senate earlier this year:
“Most of the abuse that occurs in rural areas comes from utilities or VDOT,” said Sen. R. Creigh Deeds (D-Bath).
He cited the example of the construction of a power plant in his area in the late 1970s that gobbled up local farmland. “From my perspective, this amendment offers us the opportunity to have a real eminent domain debate. Because every condemnor is treated the same,” he said.
Yes, facts hurt, especially when they contradict a politically developed ideology. This amendment is specially crafted for incumbents to approach wealthy political donors when they go out to raise campaign contributions. “See what we can do for you?”
Mike,
You could not be more wrong about this. This amendment is specifically designed to protect individual land owners from lawyers and wealthy developers. It is a result of the Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. New London, CT, in which the city was allowed to condemn privately-owned, waterfront homes in order to allow commercial development that would increase the tax base. This amendment prohibits eminent domain condemnations for commercial development by private interests or to increase the tax base. Further, if property is condemned for public use, the property owner must be compensated for the future value of the property and not the existing appraised value. That sounds fair to me as a property owner. If I am forced to sell my property that I am holding on speculation, shouldn’t I get the fair, future value of it?
BTW, aren’t you a developer of some type in Virginia Beach? No wonder you hate this amendment.
When someone believes that man-made faster then light inorganic carbon is hiding the missing heat a thousand feet under the surface of the ocean, you tend not to believe anything they say.
Actually HisRoc, from your comment it is clear you are buying the party line hook, line, and sinker. Kelo really had no application in Virginia. This amendment is simply post condemnation and it gives new property rights to property owners for lost profits and lost access that simply do not exist today. Currently the law requires just compensation, and in determining that, the damage to the remainder is included in that determination. In fact, the beneficiaries will be commercial property owners, and those paying will be homeowners. Stripped to its bare essentials, this is a method to transfer increased awards to the rich, to be paid by homeowners. Really not necessary, but hey, this fear of condemnation has worked for the republicans and probably will again.
Mike,
No matter how you try to spin this with your “up-is-down, left-is-right” nonsense, this is a reaction to Kelo. All over Virginia, as well in other states, the reaction to Kelo by local governments was, “you can do that?” Local jurisdictions, straining to increase their property tax bases, saw the Kelo decision as the magic bullet. Condemn older, distressed residential neighborhoods with low tax assessments and let a commercial developer put in a Planned Use Development with a mix of higher-taxed residential properties and commercial properties. And, even better yet, the condemned properties could be bought for their existing appraised values–instant profit for the developer who would normally have to pay much more. A win-win for the local government and for the dirt lawyers and developers making the big campaign contributions.
Tell me, if this is a Republican party line amendment then why did it pass the Democratic Senate with only 5 Nay votes?
Well yes, it is an emotional, political reaction to Kelo, which could not happen here under existing law and constitution, but why waste an opportunity to provide a gift to our wealthy donors in the hopes they will remember us when we ask for money. You make my point better than I do. This is great politics, and terrible public policy that will drive up the cost of needed public improvements. For those who claim they want to lower taxes, this is an indication of their hypocrisy.
No, Mike. Kelo is happening all the time around Virginia. Hampton is using eminent domain to acquire most of the city, Newport News has a city center that’s imploding and most of that was done on taxpayer money.
BTW, a lot of the property they acquire is sitting…waiting on future projects…not earning any taxes. All under the guise of, public(private) use.
Whatever, Mike. And why couldn’t it happen here? Your credibility as a leftie is shot with me. You would have widows and the elderly thrown out of their homes involuntarily so that people like you could build PUD’s on land that you acquired below market value. Is that what the Democratic Party stands for?
You have yet to explain how this amendment helps wealthy campaign donors. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that property can only be taken for public necessity if the owner is given “just compensation.” The only hypocrisy I can see here is people like you who want to be able to bribe local government officials to condemn private property for your financial gain.
Wow, I did not know that Bearing Drift now hosts works of fiction. Both John and HisRoc must have received a pass so they could post their fiction, devoid of facts and understanding of the real effects of the proposed amendment.
Generalities about Kelo abound in their posts, but none applies to Virginia which has always required just compensation for land taken for public purposes. But this amendment sets up an entirely new property right, that is, to be compenstated as well for possible speculative future cash flows.
Now this is not available to homeowners for whom their property is simply zoned for homes, nor to agricultural uses restricted to agriculture. But commercial zoning frequently allows many uses, and for those whose land is condemned for a public purpose, they can make an additional claim for that which they may have had just a remote possibility of redeveloping their property. In other words, they can get compensated for dreaming up possible projects they may have done some time in the future.
Now most commercial land is owned by wealthy commercial entities, so they will receive more from homeowners who do not have the same opportunity. This is welfare for lawyers and rich commercial property owners. At least call it what it really is.
Ah, Mike… You come back to zoning which I mentioned in my previous post and which is the insidious tool that local governments use to devalue/revalue property. We have examples where zoning has been used as a weapon to provide sweetheart deals at the expense of just compenation to the original property holder by friends of both commercial and residential developers on the VB city council. I got slammed in that door several times when they started developing south of the green line.
Tim J,
Hampton rezoned Harbor Square Apartments in their Master Plan. They needed massive repairs. When a potential buyer submitted to rezone back to an apartment complex for rehab, the city declined. So, the deal did not go through.
Later, the City purchased the property and is going to level it. The low-income residents have until 2014 to find new place to live. This is an excellent example where other citizens took another’s property through the teeth of government.
Honestly, our country is in serious trouble. I believe our future is looking dark as Mike will become the logical thinker. Scary, isn’t it?
Is that what the Democratic Party stands for?
Yes. Just look at the deep blue states. Do you see “Good government” socialism there? Didn’t think so.
Well John, again, thanks for proving my point that incumbents will do all they can to scare those who may not understand this amendment. As proposed, the case you cite in Hampton is not changed one iota by this proposed amendment which deals with the award to existing landowners after a condemnation for a public purpose is completed. So yes, I understand that this is actually a political tactic, which works if you have not read and understood the proposed amendment, which appears to be the case for you. Again, this is welfare for lawyers and rich commercial property owners.
Mike,
Proving your point?
Rather than paying at value cost, the city would need to pay exponentially for the property to compensate for the future rents. Because of zoning, the city essentially stolen the property.
Paying $30M rather than $14M may deter municipalities to purchase even though we’re under a fascist (public-private) regime. So, they will spend whatever they have because they have no repercussions.
If you look at the Harbor Square’s situtation, it is one of the evilest things I’ve ever seen a governemnt do. Hampton City Council stole the property. That is tyranny of a government in its worst form.
Hampton paying $40M for property valued at $14.5M would be harder to justify than doing accounting gimmicks that would make Enron proud.
Mike, how many times has Runnymede and your developer partners been a beneficiary of zoning changes that you work out with the local Council or BOS that has benefited commercial development at the expense of property owners? You best watch the hypocrisy when you start referring to welfare for “rich commercial property owners” and you are no stranger to zoning disputes… remember this one? http://articles.dailypress.com/1992-06-22/news/9206220018_1_food-lion-ballard-supervisors
This is the model of government that leftists want. They all think they will be the insiders who will use the system for their benefit while shifting the costs to the suckers. Much easier to do when government has autocratic control over citizens and media.
This amendment has absolutely nothing to do with zoning changes, so while I can understand your attempts to muddy the waters, that does not work with this citizen who has actually read the amendment and who understands the implications. Again, the far right has made great use of fear tactics to whip up a frenzy about condemnation, to the detriment of taxpayers who must bear the brunt of outrageous awards, made more outrageous if this amendment passes and goes into law. Even herein, the discussion by the supporters has been about the evils of government and taxation, with hardly one relevent comment about the actual effect of this amendment. Not a proud moment for the reputation of Bearing Drift’s stable of posters.
And let me be clear. Those who have been contacted about property needed for public purposes often use the press to whip up public outrage. That is their right. But remember, every extra dollar over fair value is a dollar the taxpayer ought not to have to pay.
Sometimes I read the responses herein and feel like I have fallen down the rabbit hole into a strange land. Above, zealots would have you believe that the power to zone land is an example of the government holding autocratic control over its citizens. Sometimes, posters herein reveal their bizarre and outlandish attitudes which totally miss the point about the proposed amendment. I have to admit they have worn me down and I won’t bore the rest with continued argument over this amendment. Suffice it to say that it is unlikely that any politician who has to raise money to run could avoid voting for this amendment; if he/she voted no, he would be cutting off major funding sources from real estate interests who can’t wait to build new financial models that will be paid for by general taxpayers.
Mike,
Read my post again, it addresses the amendment.
In addition, I address how the local government confiscated private property to steal someone’s property. It’s about low-life commericial developers using the local government to confiscate the poor for their own agenda.
Aren’t you in commercial development? Only fitting.
Mike, the amendment has everything to do with “zoning changes” at the local government level that have to conform to state and federal law. When one of your developers wants to condemn a privately held parcel for commercial use, who does he go to first to change the parcel land use classification? It’s not the state or Federal government, which is why your little group is so cozy with the developers on the VB City Council. To JJ’s point… zoning is government’s way around the 5th Amendment that isn’t really discussed. Commercial developers can grease the local Council/BOS to zone a target parcel into a trash use category, condemn the property because it maybe is no longer zoned for residential use and compensate the property owners for pennies on the dollar and force them to move. When the residential infestation is gone, then again have the local Council/BOS rezone to the desired category for development.
If we are getting a little close to the shady business of managing and developing commercial property that you are a part of, then I suggest that you take a step back and look in the mirror and reflect on the families and people you have directly affected by your actions in business rather than continuing to blame others to make yourself feel better about it.
Yes, of course, how could I have missed it? All of Virginia Beach would prefer the opportunity to have their home surrounded by chemical plants or an HRSD sanitary sewer facility. Of course, proper zoning prevents that, so I am surprised to hear it is a communist plot to rob citizens of their property rights. Now beam me up Scotty. The nuts on this forum are simply out of touch with reality.
Mike, Obviously our point was made and you cannot refute because you have resorted to your typical leftist tactics…name calling.
Mike, denial isn’t a defense and absurd hypothetical extremes aren’t facts.
Mike, Agenda 21 is so you man.
[...] changes. And local government lobbyists are aiming to do whatever they can to stop it. We’ve already seen that the city of Manassas is determined to fight. Now we learn of Spotsylvania county and the city [...]
[...] — without changes. And local government lobbyists are aiming to do whatever they can to stop it. We’ve already seen that [...]
Leave your response