|
California
legislators are considering two laws that relate to eminent domain seizure of
private property, in the wake of the controversial 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court
decision (Kelo v. New
London) in June that backed the authority of a municipality to buy up
and tear down homes to make way for a redevelopment project.
One of the bills, Assembly
Bill 590, was first proposed in February as a housing-discrimination
measure but was radically amended in July as primarily a bill relating to
eminent domain laws.
This bill provides
that, while eminent domain may be exercised to acquire property only for a
public use, "In the exercise of eminent domain, 'public use' does not
include the taking or damaging of property for private use, including, but not
limited to, the condemnation of non-blighted property for private business
development."
On Aug. 15 the
bill was re-referred for consideration by a Housing and Community Development
committee.
The other bill, Senate
Constitutional Amendment 15, would provide that private property "may
be taken or damaged only for a stated public use. The measure would also require
that the property be owned and occupied by the condemnor, except as specified,
and used only for the stated public use."
If the property "ceases
to be used for the stated public use, the former owner, or a beneficiary or an
heir who has been designated for this purpose, would have the right to
reacquire the property for its fair market value before the property may be
otherwise sold or transferred," the legislation also states.
This measure,
which requires a two-thirds majority vote, was re-referred to the Senate Rules
Committee on Tuesday.
The California
Association of Realtors has reportedly not yet taken a position on the proposed
measures.
Ron Kingston, a
lobbyist for the state association, said, "Some local redevelopment
agencies have become very aggressive in condemning property in eminent domain
proceedings, but the high court's ruling is still too fresh and too complex an
issue," according
to a report in Realtor Magazine, a publication of the National Association of Realtors trade
group.
The national
association is planning to host a session at its upcoming annual conference
titled, "Eminent Domain: How to protect property rights after Kelo." And
the association considers private property rights to be the "cornerstone
of the real estate industry."
He added, "It's
unfamiliar territory and we don't need to respond this quickly."
Legislators in several other states have also pitched bills to limit municipalities'
eminent domain authority.
Earlier
this month, Alabama Gov. Bob Riley signed
a state law that strengthens private property rights by prohibiting state
or local governments from "condemning private property in non-blighted
areas for the purpose of retail, commercial, industrial, office or residential
development," according to an Aug. 3 announcement.
"A
property rights revolt is sweeping the nation and Alabama is leading it,"
Riley said in a statement about the new state law. The announcement states that
at least eight other states passed laws, before the Supreme Court's ruling,
that prevented the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is
used to eliminate blight.
| 
