08/25/05 Eminent domain, Part Three

The Kelo vs. New London case has set in motion reaction that could become far reaching thanks to its threat of limiting private property rights, specifically the ability of the government to take such land for tax revenues that could benefit entire communities and counties as a whole, what is known in legal terms as eminent domain. Many state governments who have not dealt specifically with the issue are doing so now, as they consider laws to strengthen the rights of private property owners. BOYER: In its Kelo decision, the U.S. Supreme Court said specifically states could pass more stringent standards, more restrictions, on the takings of private property than what was in Connecticut in the particular Kelo case. And Dean Boyer of the Washington State Farm Bureau says public outcry and state government's reaction for stronger laws are warranted. As he sees it, eminent domain's domino effect can be best explained using the concept of follow the money. BOYER: If someone believes that there would be a higher use for ag lands than raising crops if they consider it a higher use to raise houses. And if you then buy a house from that development, and someone comes in and decides that no that it would be an even higher use of that land to put a manufacturing facility or high cost condos or something else, where does it stop if government can always take private property for some other use by some other private developer who thinks that he can generate more tax revenue for the government that's taking the property. But not all states are jumping on the bandwagon to toughen eminent domain laws. That's because of another economic quandary some states face, one expressed at the recent National Association of State Legislature's annual meeting held this year in Seattle. It is called the unfunded mandate. Say states model Washington State's example and approve tougher eminent domain laws. Now add Congress, also upset with the Kelo decision, considering bills that would stop states from eminent domain takings. Measures range from banning federal monies for any project getting approval as a result of the eminent domain ruling to banning use of federal funds for use for transportation improvements on lands seized for development through eminent domain. N.A.S.L. officials say that would mean states would have to cover the bill to enforce stronger eminent domain laws. More in our next program.