« Ind. Decisions - More on yesterday's Supreme Court decision re the Fort Wayne airport | Main | Law - News from a sister state, Illinois »

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

Law - More on eminent domain

Updating the ILB entry from Sunday, 7/31/05 -- Andrea Neal has a lengthy piece today that appears in both the Indianapolis Star (here) and the Evansville Courier& Press (here) that begins:

Long before the Supreme Court's explosive ruling to expand the reach of eminent domain, Rep. David A. Wolkins had crafted a bill to limit Indiana government's ability to take private property.

In its earliest form, HB 1063 would have barred local and state entities from condemning private property and then turning it over to private developers for commercial use.

The measure went through several rewritings before lawmakers voted to send the issue to a study committee. Wolkins, R-Winona Lake, will serve as chairman of the Interim Committee on Eminent Domain, which will meet for the first time at 1 p.m. Aug. 10 in the Indiana Government Center South. * * *

Wolkins said it's unlikely his committee would choose to impose an outright ban on commercial use of eminent domain, which some states are contemplating, but will undoubtedly want to tighten up Indiana law. As it now stands in Indiana, government can take property for private development if it meets the definition of blighted, a slightly different scenario than the New London and Lakewood cases, whose main purpose was generating more tax dollars. Among other objectives, Wolkins would like to guarantee property owners receive a premium price when forced to sell for economic development.

[Later today I will add links to earlier ILB entries on HB 1063.]

And the Wall Street Journal has a story in its free section titled "Eminent-Domain Uproar Imperils Projects." Some quotes:

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that governments had broad power to take private property to boost economic development, real-estate executives cheered.

But an unexpected backlash against the ruling stopped the cheering and threatens to derail some projects that depended on the use of eminent domain to seize property. * * *

In the six weeks since the Supreme Court's ruling in the Kelo v. New London case, bills have been introduced in Congress and in more than half of the state legislatures that would restrict, to varying degrees, the use of eminent domain for private development. Delaware has gone the furthest, passing a law restricting the use of eminent domain. In Alabama, legislation curbing eminent domain for economic purposes has passed both houses and awaits the governor's signature.

Real-estate and economic-development officials are growing increasingly concerned that the backlash will block more projects, potentially causing big losses for developers and canceling long-planned projects. * * *

Leading the charge against eminent domain is the Institute for Justice, the nonprofit law firm based in Washington that argued and lost the Kelo case in the Supreme Court but has scored big in the court of public opinion.

The group has a Web site cataloging hundreds of eminent-domain cases around the nation and offering "Eminent Domain Abuse Survival Guides." The group has printed T-shirts, with a picture of a huge hand about to squash a home. It says the Kelo decision focused the public's attention on a longstanding, but little-known, power of government.

"It's finally dawning on homeowners and small businesses that this could happen to me," says Dana Berliner, a lawyer at the Institute for Justice.

Whether the Institute for Justice can take credit or not, the issue has struck a nerve with Americans. In Connecticut, where the Supreme Court case originated, a Quinnipiac University poll shows just how much the eminent-domain issue resonates. By an 11-to-1 margin, those surveyed said they opposed the taking of private property for private uses, even if it is for the public economic good. According to the poll, 89% of those surveyed were against condemnations for private economic development, compared with 8% for them. Douglas Schwartz, head of the poll, says he has never seen such a lopsided margin on any issue he has polled.

Real-estate and economic-development executives say it's difficult to counter the emotional side of the argument that focuses on individual property rights. "It makes better headlines if there is an 85-year-old grandmother who is losing her house because of a highway," says Jeffrey Finkle, president of the International Economic Development Council, a nonprofit group based in Washington.

The group has posted an eminent-domain resource kit on its Web site and is talking to members of Congress about the importance of using eminent domain to redevelop cities and attract business.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 3, 2005 08:24 AM
Posted to General Law Related