ERMUSR MISC 01-10-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

By 7bm Csrund)toe~er and Laura Harri_r ~ he U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kelo a New I_ondc» ~~ rendered this past summer has precipitated more media coverage, public reaction, and policy debate than arty federal court decision in recent memory. Ironically, the ruling did little-if anythinb to change exrstmg municipal ennnent domain law at either federal or state Ievels. The Kelo decision upheld lonb standing U.S. Supreme Court precedent permitting the use of eminent domain to further economic development.The court ruled that acquiring property to promote econon>ic development, qu~ili- fied as a "public use" colder the U.S. Constitution.The court reasoned that he acquisition was executed pursuant to j a carefully considered development plan. Citing prior Supreme Court decisions, the court restated its "longstanding policy" of giving deference to legislative judgment regarding what public needs ~ justify the use of eminent domain. ~ Kelo did not in any way expand the ~ authority of Minnesota cities to acquire property. For many years state legisla- tion has explicitly authorized the use of er~unent domain for economic devel- oprnent, redevelopment, housing, and other public revitalization efforts. In addition, the Minnesota appellate courts have consrstendy recognized the authority of municipalities to use eminent domain to acyuirc property for these purposes. The Kelo decision does not empower ~ cities to indiscriminately seize residen- tial and business properties. State law requires an exhaustive process, payment ~ of fair compensation, and judicial review before any property can be acquired through eminent domain. Despite the emotional reaction to the decision, the fact that it does not create yew law should give state and federal ~ lawmakers reason to be thoughtful and ~ cautrous in fashionrng a response. ~_- - U. S. House legislation. In early November, the U.S. House of Repre- sentatives passed legislation that would severely limit local governments' use of eminent domain for economic development purposes.The bill, HR 4128, would freeze for atwo-year period all federal economic develop- ment funds to state and local govern- ments that use eminent domain to acquire property for economic devel- oprnent projects.The bill defines ea~nonric development" very broadly, and would include projects that "increase tax revenue, tax base, employment or general economic health." While the House carved out sonic limited exceptions to this broad defini- tion, these exemptions arc insufficient and would prevent local governments from assembling the property needed Eor many good redevelopment proj- ects.An amendment offered by Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio) to allow eminent domain to help remedy several harmful uses of land that are a threat to public health and safety was defeated on a 56-357 vote.The House subsequently passed an amendment offered by Rep. Gary Miller (R-California) that pro- vides a nan-ow exenrptiou to allow the use eminent domain to redevelop Brownfield sites. The House defeated several other amendments that would have addressed problems created By this legislation. One anacndrnent, offered by Rep.~crold ~ Nadler (D-NcwYork), would have i eliminated the penalties in the bill, but would have allowed property own- ers to seek injunctions against emi- nent domain acquisitions for economic development_Another amendment, authored by Rep.James Moran (D-Vir- ~ ginia), would have specified that the penalties in the bill only apply if the "primary purpose" of eminent domain acquisition is to increase tax revemre. Finally,lZep. Melvin Watt (D-North Carolina) introduced an amendment that would have deleted the. entire bill except for the "sense of Congress" provision stating disapproval of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kelo a New Landon. The amended bill passed the House on a 376-38 vote. Rep. Martin Sabo, Rep. James Oberstar, and Rep. Betty McCollum supported changes to nu>d- erate this legislation, but Sabo was the only member of Minnesota's delegation to oppose the final bill. The League of Minnesota Cities raised concerns that this legislation would severely impair the ability of local governments to promote the economic health of their corumunities, and would expose local governments and their taxpayers to substantial financial penal- ties and increased legal risk. Such broad federal restrictions on eminent domain would undermine the ability of cities to respond to unique local needs, and would have a chilling effect on public- private economic deve]opmentprojects in Minnesota. The League expressed support for a fair system that protects the rights of property owners, while preserving local governments' ability to use this important development tool, and asked Congress to let state and local elected officials deterruine what modifications arc needed. Similar legislation is awaiting action in the Senate. While the Senate Judiciary Conunittee has held hearings on this issue, no legislative action has been scheduled at this time. Torrr Gntirtddtocfer is~~erreral counsel with the Lca~;ue of Minraesotn Citicc. Phone: (651) 281-1266. E-r~2nil: tQnarrdlm(a~hwzcorq. Laura Harris is irzrcr~nvernnrcr~ttal relrrtion.~~ representative u~i~h the Lca~rue of Mi~rr~resota Cities. Phoru~: (651) 281-1260. E-rtrail: Ihnrrrs@lmrac. or~~. ~~ M I N N F S U T A (, I 'I~ I li ti N ~~ y r nn ii r; ii - 17 e c e M is F: ii ? 0 0 5 u.~. House Npproves Eminent Domain Restrictions