ravinraven
Member
I heard a couple days ago from my Congressman in reply to my letter to him regarding the Dishonorable Five’s effectively amending your property rights out of the bill of rights.
Below is the meat of the letter outlining several legislative actions that have been or will be taken:
“First, as part of our June 30 debate on the fiscal year 2006 spending bill for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development, the House, with my support, voted 231-189 to adopt an amendment to prevent the use of funds in the bill to improve or construct infrastructure support on private property obtained through the power of eminent domain for private development.
"Second, the House later that day, again with my support, voted 365-33 to adopt a sense of the House resolution that disapproves on the Court’s decision and calls on State and local governments to use eminent domain only for those purposes that serve the public good in accordance with the Fifth Amendment. The resolution further states that Congress maintains the prerogative and reserves the right to address through legislation any abuses of eminent domain by State and local governments in light of the Kelo decision.
"Third, two House Committees hav indicated an intent to hold hearings on the issue of eminent domain in light of the Court’s decision. The Chairman of the House Financial Services’ Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee announced his intent to hold a hearing in the next several weeks to explore the potential impact of the Court’s ruling on low-income households and family farms, while the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee expects his panel to hold hearings on his legislation designed to prevent the Federal government from using economic development as a justification for taking privately-owned property. The measure would also prohibit any State or municipality from doing so whenever Federal funds are involved with the project for which eminent domain authority is exercised.
"Lastly, I recently became a cosponsor of H.R. 3083, the Private Property Protection Act. The measure would declare that the power of eminent domain should be exercised only “for public use,” as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, and that the power to seize homes, small businesses, and other private property should be reserved only for true public uses. Most importantly, the power of eminent domain should not be used simply to further private economic development. The Act would apply this standard to two areas of government action clearly within congressional regulatory authority: (1) all exercises of eminent domain power by the federal government, and (2) all exercises of eminent domain power by state and local government through the use of federal funds."
===================
It will be interesting to see how all this goes and what it all amounts to in the end. If you have a congresscritter’s attention see how said critter is planning to support these initiatives. I would say that anyone having a representative in the House who is NOT property owner friendly, he/she might find an unfriendly reception at the polls next time.
rr
Below is the meat of the letter outlining several legislative actions that have been or will be taken:
“First, as part of our June 30 debate on the fiscal year 2006 spending bill for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development, the House, with my support, voted 231-189 to adopt an amendment to prevent the use of funds in the bill to improve or construct infrastructure support on private property obtained through the power of eminent domain for private development.
"Second, the House later that day, again with my support, voted 365-33 to adopt a sense of the House resolution that disapproves on the Court’s decision and calls on State and local governments to use eminent domain only for those purposes that serve the public good in accordance with the Fifth Amendment. The resolution further states that Congress maintains the prerogative and reserves the right to address through legislation any abuses of eminent domain by State and local governments in light of the Kelo decision.
"Third, two House Committees hav indicated an intent to hold hearings on the issue of eminent domain in light of the Court’s decision. The Chairman of the House Financial Services’ Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee announced his intent to hold a hearing in the next several weeks to explore the potential impact of the Court’s ruling on low-income households and family farms, while the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee expects his panel to hold hearings on his legislation designed to prevent the Federal government from using economic development as a justification for taking privately-owned property. The measure would also prohibit any State or municipality from doing so whenever Federal funds are involved with the project for which eminent domain authority is exercised.
"Lastly, I recently became a cosponsor of H.R. 3083, the Private Property Protection Act. The measure would declare that the power of eminent domain should be exercised only “for public use,” as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, and that the power to seize homes, small businesses, and other private property should be reserved only for true public uses. Most importantly, the power of eminent domain should not be used simply to further private economic development. The Act would apply this standard to two areas of government action clearly within congressional regulatory authority: (1) all exercises of eminent domain power by the federal government, and (2) all exercises of eminent domain power by state and local government through the use of federal funds."
===================
It will be interesting to see how all this goes and what it all amounts to in the end. If you have a congresscritter’s attention see how said critter is planning to support these initiatives. I would say that anyone having a representative in the House who is NOT property owner friendly, he/she might find an unfriendly reception at the polls next time.
rr
