Alabama yesterday became the first state to enact new
protections against local-government seizure of property allowed under a
Supreme Court ruling that has triggered an explosive grass-roots
counteroffensive across the country.
Republican Gov. Bob Riley signed a
bill that was passed unanimously by a special session of the Alabama
Legislature, which would prohibit governments from using their eminent-domain
authority to take privately owned properties for the purpose of turning them
over to retail, industrial, office or residential developers.
Calling
the high court's June 23 ruling "misguided" and a "threat to all property
owners," Mr. Riley said, "A property rights revolt is sweeping the nation, and
Alabama is leading it." The backlash against the judicial ruling has not
received much attention in the national press, although legislative leaders in
more than two dozen states have proposed statutes and/or state constitutional
amendments to restrict local governments' eminent-domain powers.
Besides Alabama, legislation to ban or restrict the use of eminent
domain for private development has been introduced in 16 states: California,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee
and Texas. Legislators have announced plans to introduce eminent-domain bills
in seven more states: Alaska, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Dakota, South
Carolina and Wisconsin, and lawmakers in Colorado, Georgia and Virginia plan to
act on previously introduced bills.
In addition, public support is
being sought for state constitutional prohibitions in several states - Alabama,
California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey and Texas. In an elaborate signing
ceremony in the State Capitol's historic Old House Chamber, Mr. Riley said,
"Alabamians can rest assured that their homes, farms, business and other
private property are safe from being seized by government for a shopping
center, or a factory, an office building or new residential development."
The signing immediately won praise from leading property rights
advocates who had condemned the ruling and have lobbied state legislatures to
block such practices. "Kudos to Alabama political leaders for taking the first
step toward protecting their citizens from eminent-domain abuse," said Dana
Berliner, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, a public policy
organization that conducted the first nationwide study of abusive property
seizures.
The law came in response to a 5-4 decision by the high court
that ruled that the Fifth Amendment's takings clause -- "nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without just compensation" -- did not prevent
the city of New London, Conn., from taking Susette Kelo's property for the
expressed purpose of private development in order to gain higher tax
revenue.
Although the Alabama law that the governor signed yesterday
would prohibit such eminent-domain seizures, it contains an exception that
would permit takeovers of blighted properties that could be turned over to
private interests -- a provision that critics call a loophole for future
abuses. "Alabama's blight law is particularly prone to abuse and must be
reformed," Ms. Berliner said. "If legislators close the blight loophole,
Alabama will be one of the best states in the country for protecting the rights
of home and small business owners." Jeff Emerson, spokesman for the governor,
said yesterday that Mr. Riley would "like to talk to Berliner about this to see
how it can be remedied."
The property rights movement, which had been
somewhat moribund before the court acted, has spawned what many political
strategists expect to be a major issue in the 2006 election cycle.
A
number of bills have been introduced in Congress where the issue is winning
strong bipartisan support -- from California Rep. Maxine Waters, a liberal
Democrat, to Texas Sen. John Cornyn, a conservative Republican. Polls show
unusual unity on strengthening property rights. A Quinnipiac University poll,
for example, found that 89 percent of voters in Connecticut want the
legislature to limit eminent domain. A University of New Hampshire poll found
that 93 percent of state residents were opposed to taking property for private
development.
[Non-text portions of this
message have been removed]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further
information please refer to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml |