Anti Eminent Domain Bill

[Meister]

Lets hope they get this right and bipartisan politics prevails. Reverse what a runnaway judicial system that did not interpret, but legislated a law.


Seven years after the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of cities to use eminent domain to secure land for proposed private commercial development, and after more than 40 States that have reassessed and limited their own state eminent domain laws in response, a bipartisan group of federal lawmakers is still seeking to legislatively overturn the decision in Kelo v. City of New London.


Anti-Eminent Domain Bill Passes House, Senate Consideration Possible | nlc.org

 

[FA_Q2]

It looks like it had pretty wide support from both parties. Hopefully it does pass. I could not locate the actual vote from the house though. Do you know what it was?

 

[editec]

I wouldn't count on EITHER PARTY coming down against the notion that the point of government is to help big capital.

The purpose of government now seems to be almost nothing EXCEPT to help BIG CAPITAL keep getting BIGGER.

 

[FA_Q2]

I wouldn't count on EITHER PARTY coming down against the notion that the point of government is to help big capital.

The purpose of government now seems to be almost nothing EXCEPT to help BIG CAPITAL keep getting BIGGER.

It seems, in this instance, they have in the house. One reason that I wanted to know the vote. The reps control the house so I was wondering how much support the dems gave it. The co-sponsors included democrats so that was a good sign. Of course, it still needs to get through Reid, that is another story.

 

[rdean]

The decision was 5 to 4.

What I don't understand is why any Republicans would be against this. Take a poor man's land so money can be made to benefit the few rich and create some low paying jobs. Isn't that what Republicans are all about?

 

[FA_Q2]

The decision was 5 to 4.

What I don't understand is why any Republicans would be against this. Take a poor man's land so money can be made to benefit the few rich and create some low paying jobs. Isn't that what Republicans are all about?

Nope. As a worthless hack I don't expect you to actually understand but the bill PREVENTS what you are talking about and was passed BY THE REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED HOUSE. Still waiting on the senate.

BTW, the OP was on a bill, not a SCOTUS case though it was mentioned. Care to actually address the point or do you want to continue to be a hack.

 

[zzzz]

It looks like it had pretty wide support from both parties. Hopefully it does pass. I could not locate the actual vote from the house though. Do you know what it was?

The House passed it on a voice vote. The Senate though is where the hang up is and they are trying to attach a lot of riders on it.

Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2012 - (Sec. 2) Prohibits a state or political subdivision from exercising its power of eminent domain, or allowing the exercise of such power by delegation, over property to be used for economic development or over property that is used for economic development within seven years after that exercise, if the state or political subdivision receives federal economic development funds during any fiscal year in which the property is so used or intended to be used.

Defines "economic development," generally, as the taking of private property, without the consent of the owner, and conveying or leasing such property from one private person or entity to another for commercial enterprise. Sets forth exclusions from such definition, including: (1) conveying private property for specified public uses, (2) leasing property to a private person or entity that occupies an incidental part of public property or facility, (3) acquiring abandoned property, (4) taking private property for use by a public utility, and (5) redevelopment of a brownfield site.

Renders a state or political subdivision ineligible for any federal economic development funds for a period of two fiscal years following a final judgment by a court that it has violated such prohibition.

Declares that a state or political subdivision shall not be ineligible if it returns all real property constituting a violation, replaces any property destroyed, and repairs any other property damaged as a result of the violation. Requires a state to pay applicable penalties and interest to reattain eligibility.

Bill Summary & Status - 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) - H.R.1433 - CRS Summary - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

 

[Meister]

It looks like it had pretty wide support from both parties. Hopefully it does pass. I could not locate the actual vote from the house though. Do you know what it was?

The House passed it on a voice vote. The Senate though is where the hang up is and they are trying to attach a lot of riders on it.

Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2012 - (Sec. 2) Prohibits a state or political subdivision from exercising its power of eminent domain, or allowing the exercise of such power by delegation, over property to be used for economic development or over property that is used for economic development within seven years after that exercise, if the state or political subdivision receives federal economic development funds during any fiscal year in which the property is so used or intended to be used.

Defines "economic development," generally, as the taking of private property, without the consent of the owner, and conveying or leasing such property from one private person or entity to another for commercial enterprise. Sets forth exclusions from such definition, including: (1) conveying private property for specified public uses, (2) leasing property to a private person or entity that occupies an incidental part of public property or facility, (3) acquiring abandoned property, (4) taking private property for use by a public utility, and (5) redevelopment of a brownfield site.

Renders a state or political subdivision ineligible for any federal economic development funds for a period of two fiscal years following a final judgment by a court that it has violated such prohibition.

Declares that a state or political subdivision shall not be ineligible if it returns all real property constituting a violation, replaces any property destroyed, and repairs any other property damaged as a result of the violation. Requires a state to pay applicable penalties and interest to reattain eligibility.

Bill Summary & Status - 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) - H.R.1433 - CRS Summary - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

This is where they always seem to go south. They recieve a good bipartisan bill, and the Senate puts some crap partisan pork in it that ends up killing the bill.
Ain't America wonderful?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The bill creates safe harbor for specific “public purpose” activities that necessitate eminent domain, such as the construction of roads, hospital facilities, airports or military bases. Such authority would also be permitted in cases of developing public transportation systems or infrastructure, such as the proposed Keystone pipeline, or to remove threats to public health and safety.

Doesn't go far enough.

 

[California Girl]

It looks like it had pretty wide support from both parties. Hopefully it does pass. I could not locate the actual vote from the house though. Do you know what it was?

The House passed it on a voice vote. The Senate though is where the hang up is and they are trying to attach a lot of riders on it.

Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2012 - (Sec. 2) Prohibits a state or political subdivision from exercising its power of eminent domain, or allowing the exercise of such power by delegation, over property to be used for economic development or over property that is used for economic development within seven years after that exercise, if the state or political subdivision receives federal economic development funds during any fiscal year in which the property is so used or intended to be used.

Defines "economic development," generally, as the taking of private property, without the consent of the owner, and conveying or leasing such property from one private person or entity to another for commercial enterprise. Sets forth exclusions from such definition, including: (1) conveying private property for specified public uses, (2) leasing property to a private person or entity that occupies an incidental part of public property or facility, (3) acquiring abandoned property, (4) taking private property for use by a public utility, and (5) redevelopment of a brownfield site.

Renders a state or political subdivision ineligible for any federal economic development funds for a period of two fiscal years following a final judgment by a court that it has violated such prohibition.

Declares that a state or political subdivision shall not be ineligible if it returns all real property constituting a violation, replaces any property destroyed, and repairs any other property damaged as a result of the violation. Requires a state to pay applicable penalties and interest to reattain eligibility.

Bill Summary & Status - 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) - H.R.1433 - CRS Summary - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

This is where they always seem to go south. They recieve a good bipartisan bill, and the Senate puts some crap partisan pork in it that ends up killing the bill.
Ain't America wonderful?

It is about time for the People to put a stop to this sort of behavior from our Senate. They would do well to remember that they serve us, not special interest groups.

 

[Meister]

The bill creates safe harbor for specific “public purpose” activities that necessitate eminent domain, such as the construction of roads, hospital facilities, airports or military bases. Such authority would also be permitted in cases of developing public transportation systems or infrastructure, such as the proposed Keystone pipeline, or to remove threats to public health and safety.

Doesn't go far enough.

It would still be far better than where we are now.
A developer can funnel some money to the right politicians and
build a parking lot. Not what the FF's had in mind.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The bill creates safe harbor for specific “public purpose” activities that necessitate eminent domain, such as the construction of roads, hospital facilities, airports or military bases. Such authority would also be permitted in cases of developing public transportation systems or infrastructure, such as the proposed Keystone pipeline, or to remove threats to public health and safety.

Doesn't go far enough.

It would still be far better than where we are now.
A developer can funnel some money to the right politicians and
build a parking lot. Not what the FF's had in mind.

I wouldn't say far better. Maybe slightly better or somewhat better, but the bill is called the Private Property Rights Protection Act and it makes quite a few exceptions where it's alright to steal somebody's private property.

 

[Meister]

Doesn't go far enough.

It would still be far better than where we are now.
A developer can funnel some money to the right politicians and
build a parking lot. Not what the FF's had in mind.

I wouldn't say far better. Maybe slightly better or somewhat better, but the bill is called the Private Property Rights Protection Act and it makes quite a few exceptions where it's alright to steal somebody's private property.

There always were exceptions in that law, Kevin.
"Public welfare or public interest", was the wording, I believe.
Such as schools, hospitals, roadways, etc.

Not 7-11's, hotels and such.

So yes, it would be far better than what it is now.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It would still be far better than where we are now.
A developer can funnel some money to the right politicians and
build a parking lot. Not what the FF's had in mind.

I wouldn't say far better. Maybe slightly better or somewhat better, but the bill is called the Private Property Rights Protection Act and it makes quite a few exceptions where it's alright to steal somebody's private property.

There always were exceptions in that law, Kevin.
"Public welfare or public interest", was the wording, I believe.
Such as schools, hospitals, roadways, etc.

Not 7-11's, hotels and such.

So yes, it would be far better than what it is now.

Yes, and those exceptions are the problem. It's not a protection of private property when you assert that private property can still be taken for certain purposes.

 

[Meister]

Dude....it's basically taking us back to where we were before the supreme court legislated the debacle we have now.If we had what you want, we wouldn't have a lot of schools and freeways.
You may not like it....but you probably didn't like the old eminent domain wording either.
But, at the end of the day, this new bill would be far better than what we have today. That is my contention.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Dude....it's basically taking us back to where we were before the supreme court legislated the debacle we have now.If we had what you want, we wouldn't have a lot of schools and freeways.
You may not like it....but you probably didn't like the old eminent domain wording either.
But, at the end of the day, this new bill would be far better than what we have today. That is my contention.

No, I do think this bill is a step in the right direction. My point is that it's just a very small step.

Though I will say it's ridiculous to say we wouldn't have many schools or freeways without governments stealing people's private property.

 

[Meister]

Dude....it's basically taking us back to where we were before the supreme court legislated the debacle we have now.If we had what you want, we wouldn't have a lot of schools and freeways.
You may not like it....but you probably didn't like the old eminent domain wording either.
But, at the end of the day, this new bill would be far better than what we have today. That is my contention.

No, I do think this bill is a step in the right direction. My point is that it's just a very small step.

Though I will say it's ridiculous to say we wouldn't have many schools or freeways without governments stealing people's private property.

How could we have ever built freeways without using private lands back in the 50's?
Schools would have had to be built outside the city limits and on public lands in a lot of instances. You say a small step...I say a major step, at least 7-11's aren't going to be built or an apt. complex because of deep pockets if this bill gets passed, Kevin.
Sheesh, get a grip.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Dude....it's basically taking us back to where we were before the supreme court legislated the debacle we have now.If we had what you want, we wouldn't have a lot of schools and freeways.
You may not like it....but you probably didn't like the old eminent domain wording either.
But, at the end of the day, this new bill would be far better than what we have today. That is my contention.

No, I do think this bill is a step in the right direction. My point is that it's just a very small step.

Though I will say it's ridiculous to say we wouldn't have many schools or freeways without governments stealing people's private property.

How could we have ever built freeways without using private lands back in the 50's?
Schools would have had to be built outside the city limits and on public lands in a lot of instances. You say a small step...I say a major step, at least 7-11's aren't going to be built or an apt. complex because of deep pockets if this bill gets passed, Kevin.
Sheesh, get a grip.

The same way James J. Hill built his Great Northern Railroad. You buy the private property.

 

[Meister]

No, I do think this bill is a step in the right direction. My point is that it's just a very small step.

Though I will say it's ridiculous to say we wouldn't have many schools or freeways without governments stealing people's private property.

How could we have ever built freeways without using private lands back in the 50's?
Schools would have had to be built outside the city limits and on public lands in a lot of instances. You say a small step...I say a major step, at least 7-11's aren't going to be built or an apt. complex because of deep pockets if this bill gets passed, Kevin.
Sheesh, get a grip.

The same way James J. Hill built his Great Northern Railroad. You buy the private property.

All the land was bought at fair market value, Kevin.
But, if the party doesn't want to sell, what then...just scrap the project?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How could we have ever built freeways without using private lands back in the 50's?
Schools would have had to be built outside the city limits and on public lands in a lot of instances. You say a small step...I say a major step, at least 7-11's aren't going to be built or an apt. complex because of deep pockets if this bill gets passed, Kevin.
Sheesh, get a grip.

The same way James J. Hill built his Great Northern Railroad. You buy the private property.

All the land was bought at fair market value, Kevin.
But, if the party doesn't want to sell, what then...just scrap the project?

There's no such thing as "fair market value." If they didn't pay the property owner what the property owner demanded then they stole their property.

You change the plan if the property owner doesn't want to sell.