08/24/05 Eminent domain, Part two

08/24/05 Eminent domain, Part two

Washington State is only one of eight states in the nation that had eminent domain restriction laws on the books prior to the controversial Kelo vs New London case ruled upon by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Washington State law forbids the taking of private property for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Legal experts agree that laws in states like Washington are sufficient enough to prevent private property takings. The Supreme Court ruling on the action of a Connecticut community however amplified the need for states that have never addressed the eminent domain issue via law to do so, and in a quick manner. An Idaho State Senator already has a bill set for introduction in next year's session that would limit Idaho's ability to use eminent domain to acquire property for use in retail, office, or residential development. And according to American Farm Bureau Federation Property Rights Specialist Rich Krause, more states will be addressing the issue, if they have not done so already. KRAUSE: There are other states that are considering legislation and those states that aren't in session yet until next year have formed task forces to study the issue and come up with ways the state law can work to undo the impacts. In fact, the federal government is already getting into the act in attempts to limit the impacts of Kelo vs. New London on private property owners. KRAUSE: Before Congress left at the beginning of August, there have been about five bills that have been introduced. A couple of these bills in the House have gained as many as 140 co-sponsors. Federal bills control the purse strings. They can't attack the issue directly. Federal bills will provide that economic grant funds would not be available for projects or to states that would be using Kelo-type eminent domain. They're useful, they're good tools. The power of the purse string can be a very persuasive one. But for purposes of enacting fundamental change, it has to come from the state level. But the National Conference of State Legislatures recently expressed concerns that if Congress limits funds as a way to protect eminent domain takings, even in states that allow such a practice, it could lead to a slippery slope headed towards another issue of concern & unfunded government mandates. More on potential impacts of Kelo vs. New London will be discussed in our next program.
Previous Report08/23/05 Eminent domain, Part one
Next Report08/25/05 Eminent domain, Part Three