Curtailing Kelo
By Rep. John Sullivan Posted in Congress | Eminent Domain | Kelo | Oklahoma — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Most RedState readers know about the infamous 2005 Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. City of New London, where the court broadened the government’s authority to take your home, farm, business or place of worship.
Previously, the U.S. Constitution specifically limited government taking of private property through a relatively narrow exception for “public use.” Public use has historically referred to roads, schools, firehouses, etc. The negative effects of the far-reaching Kelo decision places millions of private property owners nationwide at risk.
Some states are trying to correct this injustice and have enacted restrictions on the use of eminent domain (which, in this case, is when the government seizes private property), with varied effectiveness. However, Congress has not taken action to restore private property rights and the abusive use of eminent domain has continued.
That is why I introduced H.R. 6219, the Private Property Rights Protection and Government Accountability Act of 2008, along with the House Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Joe Barton. This bill will restrict certain federal economic development funds for 10 years to any state or locality in which eminent domain is used to take private property for a private purpose. It will also allow private property owners the legal recourse they deserve to fight baseless private property takings by state and local governments.
No family, business operator or place of worship is safe if the government decides that their property does not measure up, and that “public purpose” would be better served if it were torn down and replaced by something bigger, glitzier and more taxable.
I hope you will support us as we try to stop the local and state governments from taking your property.
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
Thank you.
"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,
I very much appreciate that you are working to do something about the Kelo decision and it's implications, but I can't help but wonder if penalties regarding Federal funding are the way to go.
I think that the Kelo decision was recognized by most as such a fundamental wrong, that amending the constitution to might be better and do-able. Disallowing eminent domain to be utilized to simply transfer property between two private entities by government fiat is something that offends across any partisan lines, IMHO, and should be able to generate the kind of support needed for an amendment change.
Good call. I wish we had more people like you in congress.
Given the SC's holdings in Midkiff and the Railroad cases, there's 100 years of precedent that construes "public use" extremely broadly and allows transfer into private hands. Would you rather that the court overturn this precedent on policy grounds?
I agree with you in principle, but the SC followed on-point historical precedent and deferred to the policy judgment of the elected state legislature of CT. Just because you don't like the policy implications of a decision doesn't mean that it was wrong.
===========
only agreement please, kthx
Stare decisis is fo' suckas
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Support for judges legislating from the bench and overturning legislation written by duly elected representatives of The People. This view is normally held by those who believe that a community cannot be trusted to set its own standards.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
I know exactly why this overthrow of precedent is an EXCEEDINGLY GOOD thing, and I'm not interested in what factions or nutjobs I might be confused with.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
We need people like you to stand up against Kelo & unfettered abuse of eminent domain.
such as the new stadium being built for the New York Mets. (The new stadium for the New York Yankees is being built on city-owned land.) Also the new basketball arena in Brooklyn. Losing government funded sports arenas and shopping malls would not be a bad thing. But voters love such projects, which is why this proposal will not have an easy time getting passed.
Charlie Hall
a publicly owned stadium is used by a privately owned team, but is still a public place. If the team leaves the stadium can still be used for other events. It therefore is a public use.
The problem with the Kelo decision is that land was taken then sold to completely private companies to build apartments, shopping centers etc.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I am afraid that this issue is getting ignored at the federal level because of all of the election year nonsense. Please continue to push for a curtailment.
Now also found at The Minority Report