2/28/06
Coalition has good start on framing the debate for eminent domain reform
The good news for people crying that the U.S. Supreme Court obliterated private property rights in Kelo vs. City of New London is that it didnít.
Justices ruled last year that the Connecticut cityís taking of unblighted property for private redevelopment constitutes a public use and is not unconstitutional.
That wasnít the last word. ìWe emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power,î the court said.
Eminent domain is one of the hottest election-year issues across the country and in Minnesota, where a strikingly diverse coalition of business and social-justice groups is backing legislation that will serve as a good starting point for the debate that will begin when the Minnesota Legislature convenes in March.
Minnesotans for Eminent Domain Reform (MNEDR) aims to ensure that if a local government wants to take property for something other than a road or a school, thereíd better be a darn good reason. And replacing perfectly good buildings with new, tax-wealthier buildings ó as in the Kelo case ó isnít reason enough.
Rep. Jeff Johnson, R-Plymouth (an attorney general candidate), and Sen. Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, are carrying the legislation on behalf of a coalition whose members range from the Minnesota Family Council and Minnesota Farmers Union to the Minneapolis Urban League and the NAACP.
Kelo did nothing to change the state of eminent domain law in Minnesota besides reignite the debate. A local governmentís ability to take property for economic redevelopment was cemented when the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld, on a tie vote, Richfieldís taking of Walser Auto Sales for transfer to another business, Best Buy, for its sleek corporate headquarters.
The parties in that case fought over whether the Walser property was truly ìblightedî and thus subject to eminent domain under court precedents. In the MNEDR legislation, mitigation of blight, environmental cleanup and removal of a public nuisance are properly recognized as legal uses of eminent domain. The bill sets forth criteria for meeting these standards. To demonstrate blight, for example, a local government would have to show building code violations and point to ways the owner has failed to maintain the property.
The bill also addresses the most offensive notion in the Kelo case ó that by government imprimatur, deeper pockets equal greater property rights:
ìThe public benefits of economic development, including an increase in tax base, tax revenues, employment, or general economic health, do not by themselves constitute a public use or public purpose (emphasis added).î
The Minnesota League of Cities, the stateís chief defender of eminent domain, will no doubt suggest its own reforms. They deserve a look. Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day OíConnor had it right when she said property taken by eminent domain can, in some cases, serve a public purpose even when transferred to private hands. But let there be a burden of proof, not an unchecked privilege. -- -- This editorial was a product of the ECM Editorial Board.
HometownSource.com
ECM Publishers, Inc.
4095 Coon Rapids Blvd.
Coon Rapids, MN 55433
