Virginians will decide at the polls this fall if the state Constitution should be amended to make it harder for government to seize property by eminent domain.
Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (Cliff Owen – Associated Press) Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) this week signed legislation calling for the November referendum.
The measure was inspired by a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the right of governments to take private property for economic development projects.
The legislation passed the House and Senate last year. It came before the General Assembly again this year because in order to amend Virginia’s Constitution, the proposed change must pass the General Assembly twice, with an election in between. Then, it must be approved by voters through referendum.
Nothing got people’s hackles up like the Eminent Domain Supreme Court case decided back in 2005. The very idea that the government can seize someone’s property. Although the moderates and liberals were fairly outraged, not one did the mad thing like the conservatives. What I find interesting is that those calling for the City of Manassas to seize the property in Georgetown South and at 9500 Liberty Street seem come from the conservative wings of the City.
I suppose it all depends on the language of this proposed amendment. I remember back when the interstates went through Virginia. If the state wanted your land, they took it, paid you what they thought it was worth and that was the end of that. Public good. The State certainly should have to work hard to take your land. I expect I will vote for the amendment but all depends on the language.
What will you do? Is it a shoe-in since this year is a presidential election?
Lets not forget the Power Line and the new “transmission corrider”. If the utility can demonstrate a need, they can also seize parts of your land and NOT properly compensate you. For instance, if you they put huge towers through your property, they only compensate you for the actual swath they take, not the loss of the real estate value of your land.
@Elena
Will that be part of the amendment? That is a total rip off. Who decides what the power companies get to do?
If you have power lines running through your property it ought to be declared zero value because in essence, that is what it iw really worth.
This discussion “Eminent Domain” is inevitably going to bring up questions about the Rural Crescent, on which Elena, Moon and I agree, and the issue of government expropriation of private property, or “takings.” I’m inclined to support the eminent domain proposal but won’t declare either way until I have actually read it. However, it does not apply to situations such as the Rural Crescent.
The eminent domain proposal aims at stopping government confiscation of private property for a non-public good. Most of us would reluctantly agree that if the government is building a road (a public good) eminent domain applies. The government has the right to take private property with just compensation to the owner in the public interest.
The current debate over eminent domain arose largely because of the Kelo case in 2005:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
In Kelo, the government took property from private owners and gave it to other private owners (a developer with strong influence in the local government) with the stated goal of “economic development.” Susan Kelo was a small homeowner who fought the local government taking her home for the benefit of a private developer.
The government had no business in this situation. No public facility was being constructed. The matter should have remained private among the parties involved with no government intervention on behalf of the developer.
The only defense of this action is accepting the developer’s claim that their project was a legitimate “public use.” I disagree vehemently with the majority of the Supreme Court who ruled that it was.
In creating the Rural Crescent in Prince William County, no one is “taking” anything from anyone. In fact, the actions of the Board of Supervisors in the late 90s reaffirmed the right of landowners to develop their property as ten-acre estate lots with no further Comprehensive Plan Amendments or Rezonings required. The Rural Crescent strengthened the property rights of people who own land in the Rural Crescent.
What we see now are some, certainly not all, landowners in the Rural Crescent, their attorneys and developers demanding a “taking” from the rest of us to enrich themselves. Denser residential development in the Rural Crescent would be even more costly than increasing densities in and closer to areas where density greater than one home per ten acres is already allowed. New roads, sewers, schools, etc. would be necessary. The vast majority of residential development, even development outside the Rural Crescent, does not pay for itself and must be subsidized by other taxpayers and residents.
The Board of Supervisors at the request of Supervisor Nohe, recently decided to revisit the Rural Crescent. You don’t need an IQ above room temperature to see where this “study” is headed. With Supervisors Nohe and Covington taking the lead, this “study” will be the first step in dismantling the Rural Crescent. If this happens, the Board of Supervisors would much more easily be able to increase residential density in the Rural Crescent. Thus, landowners, developers and attorneys (who provide the vast majority of campaign funding for Nohe and Covington) would enjoy a financial windfall at the expense of the rest of us.
Prince William County taxpayers would suffer a “taking” as we would pay higher taxes to subsidize the public infrastructure and services for new residential development in the Rural Crescent. We would also suffer a “taking” through lower quality of life from the greater congestion on the roads and overcrowding in the schools this new development would cause.
When the debate about the Rural Crescent begins and we’re talking about property rights and eminent domain, let’s not allow the wires to get crossed. Rural Crescent landowners who can today make a fortune developing their property by-right as ten-acre estate lots are not the victims. The “takings” victims would be those of us who would pay higher taxes and suffer a lower quality of life as big landowners, developers and attorneys win the Prince William County development lottery, facilitated by the Board of Supervisors and well-oiled by campaign contributions.
What was the end of the Kelo story? From the Wikipedia story linked above,
“In spite of repeated efforts, the redeveloper (who stood to get a 91-acre waterfront tract of land for $1 per year) was unable to obtain financing, and the redevelopment project was abandoned. As of the beginning of 2010, the original Kelo property was a vacant lot, generating no tax revenue for the city.
“In September 2009, the land where Susette Kelo’s home had once stood was an empty lot, and the promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues had not materialized. The land was never deeded back to the original homeowners, most of whom have left New London for nearby communities.”
Watch out Prince William County. As we’ve discussed on Moonhowlings before, developers bought last year’s Board of Supervisors election. They want services now for what they paid. Kelo should be a lesson in what’s coming our way if Mr. Nohe, Mr. Covington and others get their way. Don’t think eminent domain legislation will protect you from it.