Posted on June 21, 2012 at 7:52pm by 
Jason Howerton
Jason Howerton 
U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) (AP Photo/Harry Cabluck)
U.S. Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced legislation
today aimed at strengthening private property rights and limiting the
government’s power of eminent domain, which allows the seizure private
property without the owner’s consent.
The
Protection of Homes, Small Businesses and Private Property Act of 2012
intentionally coincides with the seventh anniversary of the U.S. Supreme
Court’s decision in Kelo v. the City of New London in which the Court
ruled that local governments could utilize eminent domain to confiscate
private property at their discretion.
“The
Kelo decision represented a vast expansion of government power of
eminent domain—one that went too far. My legislation would limit that
power and restore the basic protections of private property rights that
our founders intended,” Cornyn said in a statement.
The
bill argues that the “protection of homes, small businesses and other
private property rights against government seizures and other
unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principal and core
commitment of our Nation’s founders.” It also cites the Fifth Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution, which states eminent domain may only be used
for only for “public use.”
Taken directly from the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses and Private Property Act of 2012:
The
Court’s decision in Kelo is alarming because, as Justice O’Connor
accurately noted in her dissenting opinion, joined by the Chief Justice
and Justices Scalia and Thomas, the Court has ‘‘effectively . . .
delete[d] the words ‘for public use’ from the Takings Clause of the
Fifth Amendment’’ and thereby ‘‘refuse[d] to enforce properly the
Federal Constitution.
Under the Court’s decision in Kelo, Justice O’Connor warns, ‘‘The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or an farm with a factory.
The
bill concludes with a challenge to lawmakers to restore the protections
provided under the Fifth Amendment and protect private property owners
from even the possibility of wrongful, unlawful property seizure.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
“Property
rights are the bulwark of a free society. If we allow our government to
confiscate private property at will, then we will eventually lose our
other constitutionally protected rights as well. I am proud to stand
with Sen. Cornyn to introduce this legislation that will restore
property rights to the American people,” said Paul in a statement.
In the landmark property rights case, New London officials decided they needed Susette Kelo’s land and the surrounding 90 acres for a multimillion-dollar private development that included residential, hotel conference, research and development space and a new state park that would compliment a new $350 million Pfizer pharmaceutical research facility.
Kelo and six other homeowners fought for years, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2005, justices voted 5-4 against them, giving cities across the country the right to use eminent domain to take property for private development while also confirming the government’s authority to take property from one person and give it to another if they believe it may promote economic development.
In the landmark property rights case, New London officials decided they needed Susette Kelo’s land and the surrounding 90 acres for a multimillion-dollar private development that included residential, hotel conference, research and development space and a new state park that would compliment a new $350 million Pfizer pharmaceutical research facility.
Kelo and six other homeowners fought for years, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2005, justices voted 5-4 against them, giving cities across the country the right to use eminent domain to take property for private development while also confirming the government’s authority to take property from one person and give it to another if they believe it may promote economic development.
Susette
Kelo, left, former owner of the little pink house stands with Avner
Gregory, the new owner, during a dedication ceremony at the home's new
location in New London, Conn., Saturday, June 21, 2008. Kelo lost her
home when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in June 2005 that local
governments may seize homes and businesses even against the owners' will
for private economic development. (AP Photo/Jessica Hill)
Ironically, weeds, glass, bricks, pieces of pipe and shingle splinters had replaced the knot of aging homes at the site of the nation’s most notorious eminent domain project. Much of the property was reportedly still undeveloped as of late 2009.
If the prospect of the government using eminent domain to seize private property sounds absurd to you, consider this: they try it all the time, and sometimes succeed.
The Los Angeles Times reported on Wednesday:
San
Bernardino County is pursuing a program that would use eminent domain
to seize mortgages and restructure them for underwater homeowners stuck
in their properties.
The aggressive plan, approved unanimously this week by the county Board of Supervisors, is titled the Homeownership Protection Program and partners the county with the cities of Ontario and Fontana. The program will use private funds from investors to acquire underwater mortgages – those that are worth less than the debt owed on them – and restructure them on behalf of homeowners in those cities.
David Wert, a spokesman for the county, said the program was still in its initial stages and details are not yet firm. Those details will be hashed out in public, he said.
“Under this particular proposal, the county would use its eminent domain authority to condemn the mortgages on negative equity properties and that way the county would take possession — would be the owner of the mortgages,” Wert said. “The mortgages could then be renegotiated at a lower amount.”
The aggressive plan, approved unanimously this week by the county Board of Supervisors, is titled the Homeownership Protection Program and partners the county with the cities of Ontario and Fontana. The program will use private funds from investors to acquire underwater mortgages – those that are worth less than the debt owed on them – and restructure them on behalf of homeowners in those cities.
David Wert, a spokesman for the county, said the program was still in its initial stages and details are not yet firm. Those details will be hashed out in public, he said.
“Under this particular proposal, the county would use its eminent domain authority to condemn the mortgages on negative equity properties and that way the county would take possession — would be the owner of the mortgages,” Wert said. “The mortgages could then be renegotiated at a lower amount.”
It
may sound like the government is coming to the aide of homeowners, but
under the current program, the local county government would essentially
become the bank, owning the mortgage on the properties. That isn’t
exactly the role any government entity should take on.
Other cities are reportedly considering similar measures.
Other cities are reportedly considering similar measures.
WVIR in Charlottesville, Va. reported
on Monday that Charlottesville City Council voted in favor of using
eminent domain to seize a piece of land owned by a private company,
Middle Mountian LLC, to be used for future construction and development.
The Kansas City Business Journal reported
on June 8 that a Kansas City local government has filed a petition to
assert eminent domain in Clay County Circuit Court. They want to condemn
a Burger King and use the property it sits on for city redevelopment.
The property owner is reportedly holding out and is not willing to give
up his plot of land.
These instances are only very recent eminent domain cases. A simply Google search will turn up an abundance of other instances.
Obviously, not every case of eminent domain is a blatant violation of property rights as some property owners sometimes agree to give up their property, however, as shown in Kelo v. the City of London, it is certainly possible. The only remaining question is: do we want any government entity to have that type of power?http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2012/06/sens-rand-paul-and-john-cornyn.html
Obviously, not every case of eminent domain is a blatant violation of property rights as some property owners sometimes agree to give up their property, however, as shown in Kelo v. the City of London, it is certainly possible. The only remaining question is: do we want any government entity to have that type of power?http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2012/06/sens-rand-paul-and-john-cornyn.html
