Today's News
Today's News
This Issue
Letters to the
Editor
Writers
Eminent Domain Reform To Be
Introduced in U.S.House of Representatives
Property Owners Still Left Unprotected from Federally Funded
Abuses Two Years After Kelo
By The Castle Coalition
Arlington, Va. - July 12, Representatives Maxine
Waters (D-CA) and F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) introduced the Private Property
Rights Protection Act of 2007 to stop taxpayer funding of eminent domain abuse.
This bipartisan bill would counter the effects of the U.S. Supreme Court's
infamous decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which allows governments
to use eminent domain to seize private property on behalf of private developers
in hopes of increasing tax revenue. The Act would deny for two fiscal years
economic development funds to state and local governments that use eminent
domain for private development.
In 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 4128,
the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005, by a vote of 376 to 38. The
bill was co-sponsored by representatives from across the political and
ideological spectrum, including Representatives Waters, Sensenbrenner, John
Conyers Jr. (D-MI), and Henry Bonilla (R-TX). Despite unprecedented bipartisan
political and public support, the bill languished in the Senate Judiciary
Committee and ultimately died.
"Federal protections from eminent domain abuse are long overdue," said Bert
Gall, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which argued the
Kelo case on behalf of the homeowners. IJ and the Castle Coalition - a
nationwide grassroots organization of property owners and activists dedicated to
stopping eminent domain abuse - have led the fight to reform state and federal
eminent domain laws. "Even though the vast majority of Americans oppose the
abuse of eminent domain for private development, the federal government still
funds that abuse."
June 23 marked the two-year anniversary of the Kelo decision. In every
poll since that ruling, the public is overwhelmingly against eminent domain for
private use. Forty-two states have passed eminent domain reforms reining in the
Kelo decision, including 10 states where voters passed ballot measures by wide
margins in last year's elections.
But many of those reforms
The author's tone is informative because it gives a complete background on the Kelo v. New London case starting with how it started and ending with how eminent domain has changed over the years. The tone of the author is also hostile because they are in favor of Kelo and make comments through out the article such as, " Allowing condemnation for "economic development" just allows cities and developers to pick whatever land they want, without regard to the people who live or work there" or "This ruling is an invitation to disaster because every business generates more taxes than a home and every big business generates more taxes than a small one." The Institute for Justice claims that state and local governments are abusing the power of eminent domain all over the country by taking private homes and businesses for developers who promise more jobs and taxes. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that "public use" translated to benefiting the economy. The city council of New London allowed the New London Development Corporation, a private organization, to begin to craft their existing development plan for the neighborhood of Fort Trumbull in New London, Connecticut. The Institute of Justice filed a lawsuit against the city of New London in Superior Court on behalf of seven of the property owners who refused to move. The Superior Court ruled in favor of four out of the seven home owners, but the Supreme Court ruled against the home owners two years later. Their reasoning was that as long as the city felt it was in a "financial hardship" and that a private development would benefit them in ways of jobs and taxes, then this use of eminent domain for justifiable. I believe this article is very useful because it does provide a good background on Susette Kelo and the Kelo v. New London case. It also supports my side of the argument. I wil use it to demonstrate how eminent domain is being abused.It will help my readers get a better understanding of the abuse issue of eminent
