http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/04/ ... index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Contending that the Supreme Court has undermined a pillar of American society -- the sanctity of the home -- the House overwhelmingly approved a bill Thursday to block the court-approved seizure of private property for use by developers.

The bill, passed 376-38, would withhold federal money from state and local governments that use powers of eminent domain to force businesses and homeowners to give up their property for commercial uses.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling in June, recognized the power of local governments to seize property needed for private development projects that generate tax revenue. The decision drew criticism from private property, civil rights, farm and religious groups that said it was an abuse of the Fifth Amendment's "takings clause." That language provides for the taking of private property, with fair compensation, for public use.

The court's June decision, said House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, changed established constitutional principles by holding that "any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party."

The ruling in Kelo v. City of New London allowed the Connecticut city to exercise state eminent domain law to require several homeowners to cede their property for commercial use.

With this "infamous" decision, said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Georgia, "homes and small businesses across the country have been placed in grave jeopardy and threatened by the government wrecking ball."

The bill, said Chip Mellor, president of the Institute for Justice, which represented the Kelo homeowners before the Supreme Court, "highlights the fact that this nation's eminent domain and urban renewal laws need serious and substantial changes."

But opponents argued that the federal government should not be interceding in what should be a local issue. "We should not change federal law every time members of Congress disagree with the judgment of a locality when it uses eminent domain for the purpose of economic development," said Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Virginia.

The legislation is the latest, and most far-reaching, of several congressional responses to the court ruling. The House previously passed a measure to bar federal transportation money from going for improvements on land seized for private development. The Senate approved an amendment to a transportation spending bill applying similar restrictions. The bill now moves to the Senate, where Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has introduced companion legislation.

About half the states are also considering changes in their laws to prevent takings for private use.

The Bush administration, backing the House bill, said in a statement that "private property rights are the bedrock of the nation's economy and enjoy constitutionally protected status. They should also receive an appropriate level of protection by the federal government."

The House bill would cut off for two years all federal economic development funds to states and localities that use economic development as a rationale for property seizures. It also would bar the federal government from using eminent domain powers for economic development.

"By subjecting all projects to penalties, we are removing a loophole that localities can exploit by playing a 'shell game' with projects," said Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas, a chief sponsor.

The House, by a voice vote, approved Gingrey's proposal to bar states or localities in pursuit of more tax money from exercising eminent domain over nonprofit or tax-exempt religious organizations. Churches, he said, "should not have to fear because God does not pay enough in taxes."

Eminent domain, the right of government to take property for public use, is typically used for projects that benefit an entire community, such as highways, airports or schools.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion in Kelo, said in an August speech that while he had concerns about the results, the ruling was legally correct because the high court has "always allowed local policy-makers wide latitude in determining how best to achieve legitimate public goals."

Several lawmakers who opposed the House bill said eminent domain has long been used by local governments for economic development projects such as the Inner Harbor in Baltimore and the cleaning up of Times Square in New York. The District of Columbia is expected to use eminent domain to secure land for a new baseball stadium for the Washington Nationals.

------------------------------------------

Nice to see Congress taking the initiative on this as the SC said in the majority decision. This to me is a fine example of how the judicial and legislative branches should operate. Like I said when that ruling went down, I disagreed with it but understood why the majority voted the way they did.

Finally! Some good news from Capitol Hill! Fuck You Wal-Mart! I hope anyway...

(There are several issues involving eminant domain and Wal-Mart here in CO...)

Dammit!!!

Just 3 months ago the county government took the golf course behind my house, by ED, and sold it to make a senior living center.

This is just typical congress being typical congress. Idiots!! They wouldn't know whats good for the economy if it hit them in the face.

**waits for decision on new tax laws to kill the housing industry**

Oh, poor rich developers won't get to take grandma's house anymore. I feel so sorry for them.

You want my fucking land, buy it from me. If I don't want to sell it, fuck off. That's the America I and most other Americans want to live in.

Can I use this quote when speaking of controversial issues certain members of the Supreme Court believe are in their realm to legislate (rather than the legislators themselves)?

Absolutely. In fact, I might go so far to say that those who were in the minority in this ruling may have been attempting a little legislating. It seemed pretty straightforward to me that a more concrete definition of "public good" was necessary rather than a shaky SC decision.

The SC just said it was up to local governments to decide what was "Public Good" right?

I think this legislation is good and bad. Good that it will slow down greedy local governments. Bad in that it's just another way for the fed to extend it's will over the people.

If you haven't noticed, the greedy local govts are the ones who are having trouble keeping their heads above water. I guess some people just want this country's economy to tank. Keep supporting the ever shrinking tax base.

Oh I get it, the national economy will tank without eminent domain. That makes sense.

Your deduction skills are terrible. But local economies are shrinking and having trouble staying afloat with the rise in inflation, gas prices, etc. Without the tax bases raising, local economies can't survive. Now why don't you argue those facts instead of making some ridiculous statements.

They could cut services.

So if a local enconomy flounders, then the gov't should sieze as much land as possible, are you for or against eminent domain?

I'd say there are plenty of other avenues local governments could explore to help their economies before taking people's land.

I've always despised the ol' "We'll withhold our funds unless you follow our rules" mentality that the federal gov't does, even if the cause may be good, as it appears to be here.

Cutting city jobs like police and fire, bus drivers,etc helps the economy in the short term but in the long term growth is needed. Some little towns and cities have only a few square miles of land (which is a finite source) and sometimes recycling of land is a good idea.

Its not like developers evict people without offering to pay for the land. Even in the case in Mass or Conn, 75% or more of the people took the developers money and ran. And not to mention, most of these cases take place in commercial zoning districts and not residential. Most of the houses which are taken are "grandfathered" homes which were built years ago that don't fit into today's city plans. Its not like they are wiping out house developments to put up a K-Mart.

My first response was the same as Serjical strike's, but now I'm thinking that generally I trust local government more than Federal Government. However, I still don't like this eminent domain business.