UPDATE 2– SB7 Eminent Domain Bill in the House Today WIN!
SB7, the Eminent Domain bill, comes up for debate and vote in the House today. The NJ reports that there is the possibility of a killer amendment to this bill being introduced in an effort to derail the legislation. This is a part of the current Synopsis:
This Bill requires state, county, or municipal governments, or State agencies or other condemning entities to use their eminent domain authority solely for “public use” and defines that term. The Bill specifically states that benefits derived from economic development do not constitute a public use. The Bill also includes notice to property owners of the asserted public use and this policy. The Bill also sets a procedure for a court hearing to consider how the State has met its burden of proof when private use is contemplated.
Passing this bill is incredibly important. While politicians, the Chamber of Commerce and developers will tell you that passage of this bill will impede local business, the only accomplishment of defeating this bill is to let local governments increase their tax bases at the expense of property owners. And it gives the local governments valuable assets to subsidize wealthy developers with. Call if you can NOW to ask your Representative to support this bill:
- House Republicans (302) 744-4171
- House Democrats (302) 744-4351
Ask for your Representative by name, tell them or their staffer that you want them to support SB7. Alternately, you can email your Representative — find his or her address here.
Let us know what you hear on this today.
Update: Just had an email exchange with Drew Volturo, who advises that Susan Regis Collins’ info that Rep. Melanie George Marshall will be sponsoring an amendment to sideline SB7 is incorrect. While this is also on WDEL today, Drew says that Rep. Marshall’s sponsorship is “100% false”. I did note that the NJ is reporting a rumored “killer” amendment and Drew says that reporting is true — there is a rumor, but he says he doesn’t “know if anyone will be introducing the rumored amendment, but we’ll find out one way or another in the next 2 hours.”
Update 2: The NJ is reporting that SB7 has passed the House 41-0! Excellent news….
Tags: eminent domain
Yes, that nasty Harris McDowell tried to get an amendment thru the senate….it failed.
Now I hear Melanie George (another legacy politico..repping Bear?) is trying to get an amendment in the House.
Call her ass out.
What does this amendment say, do you know?
Pandora, you mentioned living in McDowell’s district. is there anyone who can primary him? maybe not to beat, just to remind who he answers to.
Question: Say this passes. Hasn’t this already been ruled on by the Supreme Court?
Now I hear Melanie George (another legacy politico..repping Bear?) is trying to get an amendment in the House.
What? She’s doing something of effort (not noble, mind you), aside from reminding everyone who her father is (Orlando) and…well, let’s not start on her non-legis “job.” I guess she can’t spend her time defending Meconi anymore, so she has to look busy.
Jason, I would hope that DD could help on your question, but I think that the Supremes ruling was fairly narrow and did not preclude a state taking a stronger position. But I don’t know for sure.
And a.price — I heard again last night from a local pol that Charles Potter seems serious about primarying McDowell.
Question: Say this passes. Hasn’t this already been ruled on by the Supreme Court?
Jason, I’m not 100% on this, but I think the ruling was an interpretation based on vagueness in the language of the law (aren’t many of them vague?). This bill, if passed, would offer more detail to the language. HOWEVER, isn’t eminent domain a state’s issue and the Supreme Court ruled on a CT case? I’m looking for someone who knows this stuff. Tyler? Helllooooo?
In 1986, the Delaware courts KO’d the Wilmington Parking Authority’s attempt to condemn Libby’s Restaurant for a deal to benefit The News Journal. In this case and elsewhere, the Delaware courts have stated that private property may only be taken for a public use. This means that quasi-public agencies [housing authorities] and certain private owners [such as hospitals] could end up owning the condemned land.
The court was clear about the requirement of public benefit: “the reviewing court must be satisfied that the underlying purpose — the motivating desire — of the public authority is the benefit to the general public. If a self-styled project is so designed that in fact private interests are the chief beneficiaries, a remedy is available.”
This warning shot from the Supreme Court of Delaware stands in the way of any condemnation designed for private benefit .
The proposed legislation rolled off the presses of the Heartland Foundation, the perfervid property-rights think tank, home of Global Warming deniers, advocates of public subsidy of private schools, single-payer health reform opponents, tobacco industry defenders and other Palinologists. A look at their priorities is revealing:
http://www.heartland.org/suites/environment/index.htmls
This group’s anti-government agenda suffuses the pending bill. If legislation is needed to state once again that condemnation for private benefit is off-limits – as if the Delaware courts aren’t already clear on the subject – we can do better than photocopy a draft prepared by these guys.
Updated this post with some fact-checking info from Drew Volturo, Communications Director for the House Majority. According to Drew, Rep. Melanie George Marshall is not sponsoring an amendment to SB7.
JM – I believe that the 86 ruling re: Libby’s is not a valid precedent anymore. Kelo reset the playing field on public good.
As for the Heartland Foundation, I know nothing about them, but even a blind chicken gets corn sometime, so perhaps they are actually right for once.
LG – Kelo didn’t overturn the Libby’s case. The Kelo decision was fairly limited: that the US Constitution does not contain a requirement that only governments may own condemned land. The Supreme Court said the states could impose their own additional limitations on condemnation powers. The limitations announced by the Delaware courts remain in place.
Dahlia has some background:
http://www.slate.com/id/2121410/entry/2121565/
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/books/review/Lithwick-t.html
The Heartland Foundation is indeed ground zero for a fair amount of the wingnuttiest of the wingnut crap — but JH certainly provides no evidence that this groups of people are the source of the SB7 legislation. And as for DE law already being adequate, I think that is not the experience of the Wilmington Riverfront business owners who have this pointed at them.
Cassandra – One of the Heartland Foundation’s subsidiaries is The Castle Coalition, which heads up this aspect of Heartland’s work. Castle basically drafted the Delaware bill.
http://www.castlecoalition.org/
As I see it:
The ‘source’ for this legislation was Mike Purzicki (sp) the director of the Riverfront Development Corp. (RDC). He was appointed by Carper and some 1B $$ later he is still on the payroll (take note Gov. Markell…you could save some bucks here). The RDC’s Shipyard Shoppes are a total failure…the list goes on but I am off point.
Purzicki sent the original email to the city’s planning dept. inquiring about the possibility of using eminent domain on S. Market St. The city’s lobbyists have been busy twisting arms in the GA ever since. Rep. Dennis P. Williams is to be commended for sponsoring this bill.
FYI: A good source tells me that BPG laid off 45 people yesterday. Any verification around?
From the same source: BPG is virtually bankrupt…if they hadn’t received a 15 M boost from city funds (that’s right the Bakers couldn’t find 18 M to repair our sidewalks but to prop up their ‘IN’ fantasy: No Problem) They’d be belly up….maybe laying off 45 is a hint of their financial situation.
Now, if you want to LOL call Wilm. City Council office and ask them when “Hot Topics” (w/Rago, Betts, Baker, Newman @ the Hotel duPont or just wait till Tyler posts it on Delaware Libertarian ).
Just Learn SB 7 passed the House w/o 41-0!!!!!
That BPG rumor is fishy.
At least Pettinaro is deep-pockets enough to build the tower on the courthouse or so says the WNJ.
The Castle Coalition is a project started by the Institute for Justice, the (libertarian) nonprofit public interest law firm that represented Susette Kelo and regularly litigates eminent domain, First Amendment and other cases involving constitutional issues.
Neither the Castle Coalition nor IJ is a “subsidiary” of the (conservative) Heartland Institute.