08/26/05 Eminent domain; Finale

08/26/05 Eminent domain; Finale

While the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision of Kelo vs. New London has brought together a diverse coalition of groups and individuals upset with the ruling, the loudest cries and concerns have come from both the agriculture and private property right sectors. Their greatest fear is with the ruling governments have eminent domain to take property for commercial development, if that means greater community benefits through increased tax revenues, and less control over how land is to be used by the individual landowner. BERNASEK: Many of them are just shocked at the fact that this case came down the way it did. It seems like just common sense that this isn't what local governments do & take private property and transfer it from one private property owner to another private property owner just because there may be a better economic use of that land. And Oregon Farm Bureau Legal Counsel Tim Bernasek says that has sounded the alarm for action. In his state, it took the form of a House bill in the Oregon Legislature designed to limit eminent domain takings for commercial or residential property development. But the deadline to move the bill through with only two weeks left to go in the recently concluded session was too much. BERNASEK: There was an attempt. It did not make it through. There was some opposition from cities, counties, and other groups to it, so we were not able to get it through. But not deterred, a citizens group is gathering signatures for a voters initiative designed to limit eminent domain takings. The goal is to have voters decide the issue during the November 2006 elections. But it is not just citizens in states where eminent domain rules were vague or non-existent that are going the extra mile to assure property rights are protected. Take Washington State for example. It is one of eight states with eminent domain laws on the books to limit property takings for commercial development. But Dean Boyer of the Washington State Farm Bureau says more can be done to help stop what has been an erosion of property rights through various regulations in recent years. BOYER: We certainly believe that perhaps it needs to be spelled out in even clearer language, which is one reason that Washington Farm Bureau will be sponsoring a property rights initiative next year here in Washington. Our plans at this point are to file our property rights initiative soon after the first of the year, and then begin gathering signatures along about February. And on a closing note, the U.S. Supreme Court this week decided it will not revisit its ruling on Kelo vs. New London any time soon.
Previous Report08/25/05 Eminent domain, Part Three
Next Report08/29/05 Advice on ag trade matters