Forestalling Future Kelos

The backlash against June's Supreme Court ruling on the case of Kelo vs. City of New London (a decision which legitimized municipalities taking private property and reselling it to private developers), is finally beginning to bear some fruit at the federal level.

Back on November 4, the House passed HR 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005, by a strong vote of 376-38 (with 19 Representatives not voting). Not only does this bill prohibit states and municipalities that receive federal funds from using "eminent domain" powers to take private property for economic development, but it provides legal recourse for owners affected by such takings.
The act would, in effect, overturn Kelo. But given the Supreme Court's willingness to broadly construe the meaning of the Fifth Amendment's "takings clause," and the fact that the five-judge concurring side remains intact (Rehnquist and O'Connor having both dissented), I'm not certain how stoutly the act would stand against a legal challenge.

Nevertheless, eminent domain proponents are worried that the bill would tie their hands:

...Marilyn Mohrman-Gillis, director of policy and federal relations at the National League of Cities, said eminent domain as a general practice has been sparingly used by elected officials and accompanied by due process and just compensation for the seized property.

She added that the practice has been around for over 20 years without any indication of widespread abuse.

"There is no one-size-fits-all type of definition for economic development" she said. "This is a states' rights issue and the states, not the federal government, should be allowed to develop a working definition that takes into consideration the projects that are going on."

It's nice that there may be "abuses," but there's no need to deal with them until they're "widespread." And I don't know how this can possibly be a states' rights issue, given that the underlying takings power is granted by the US Constitution.

Of course, the most laughable component of her objection is the part about "due process and just compensation." I offer this Kelo follow-up article for your review.

In the adding insult to injury category, the city officials that triumphed over a group of Connecticut homeowners in a landmark Supreme Court property-rights case are expecting those residents to pay the local government rent dating back to the year 2000...

Not only is the city demanding rent, but the buyout offers on the table are based on the market rate as it was in 2000, before most of the growth in the current real-estate bubble...

"I'd leave here broke," Kelo told the weekly. "I wouldn't have a home or any money to get one. I could probably get a large-size refrigerator box and live under the bridge."

Tags: Eminent Domain Kelo Supreme Court SCOTUS Fifth Amendment House Property Rights Congress