What is Brownwood's James Williamson keeping from you ?

" The ruling united many liberals and conservatives in horror."

EDITORIAL
Don't rush a new rule on eminent domain
Advertisement
EDITORIAL BOARD
Monday, July 11, 2005
Gov. Rick Perry and some members of the Texas Legislature want the current special session, called to reform public school finances, to also push for new limits on the power of eminent domain. Their concern is justified and the issue merits serious study, but the Legislature should not rush to action.
The issue has arisen because of a June 23 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case from Connecticut, Kelo v. City of New London. In a 5-4 ruling, the court held that government, using the power of eminent domain, could force the owner of a private property — home or business — to sell it in the name of economic development.
The ruling united many liberals and conservatives in horror. They fear governments will use the eminent domain power to seize homes and businesses, not to build a highway, erect a library or expand a park, but to benefit other businesses whose success would — the government says — enrich the community as a whole.
At issue is the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which says private property can be taken by the government only for "public use," and that just compensation must be paid. In Connecticut, New London officials had a redevelopment plan that required taking 115 privately owned parcels in the city's Fort Trumbull area, plus 32 acres formerly owned by the Navy. The development plans include a new waterfront hotel, 80 new residences in a "small urban village," restaurants, shopping and offices.
But nine people refused to sell. One homeowner, Susette Kelo, bought her home in 1997 and improved it, and she prizes her view of the waterfront. Another, Wilhelmina Dery, was born in her home in 1918 and has lived there ever since; her husband has been in it for 60 years. New London is struggling economically, but these were not blighted properties.
The majority ruling, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, favored the state. Though private property can't be taken just to benefit another private property owner, the majority ruling said, "For more than a century, our public use jurisprudence has wisely eschewed rigid formulas and intrusive scrutiny in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power."
Put another way, the Supreme Court refused to legislate from the bench, leaving it to the people, through their elected representatives, to decide how strictly to limit the use of eminent domain for economic development.
There's potential for serious abuse here. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor warned in her dissent, "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
Legislation to ban the taking of private property for economic development has been introduced both in the Legislature and Congress. In Texas, there is a proposed constitutional amendment, and on Friday, Perry added the issue to the agenda of the special session. But a hastily written and adopted law or amendment limiting eminent domain could frustrate legitimate efforts by cities or the state to acquire property.
The smarter course would be for House and Senate committees to conduct hearings and studies before drafting legislation for the next regular session of the Legislature, in 2007. Meanwhile, state and local governments, as well as state courts, are on notice that seizures of private property for questionable economic development purposes will face stricter scrutiny from a concerned public.

source: http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/07/11seizure_edit.html
----------------