Spending Bill Would Blunt Supreme Court's Property Seizure
Ruling
Sam
Hananel
The Associated
Press
10-20-2005
Reacting to a Supreme Court ruling, the
Senate on Wednesday moved to bar some federal funds from projects where
people's homes are seized for private development.
An amendment to the
transportation, treasury and housing spending bill would prevent any money in
the bill from being spent on projects that seek to use the power of eminent
domain to build shopping malls or other commercial developments.
"People should not be forced out their homes at the will of any private
development," said Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., who offered the amendment. The bill is
expected to pass the Senate this week.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in
June that local governments could take homes for private development projects
that generate jobs and tax revenue. The decision was widely criticized by
property rights groups and drew a scathing dissent from Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor as favoring wealthy corporations.
Since then, Congress has
considered several measures to withhold federal funds from federal, state or
local projects that take private property in the name of economic development.
The House has approved legislation to bar federal transportation funds from
being used in such projects.
Separately, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, is
pushing a bill that would ban the use of any federal funds in construction
projects that rely on the Supreme Court decision to seize property.
Eminent domain is typically used for public works projects that benefit
entire communities, such as highways, airports or mass transit projects. The
measure approved Wednesday would continue to allow federal funds to be used
when property is confiscated for public use.
Bond's amendment, adopted
on a voice vote, also requires the Government Accountability Office to study
the use of eminent domain.
More than two dozen states are considering
changes to eminent domain laws to prevent the taking of land for private
development. In its ruling, the high court said states are free to ban that
practice.
[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 |