Thread: NC: House votes to restrict eminent domain

House votes to restrict eminent domain

Amendment would limit seizure to public use of property

J. Andrew Curliss, Staff Writer
Voters across the state could get to rewrite the state constitution so that government agencies in North Carolina cannot seize someone's private property for an economic development project, even when a fair price is paid.

The state House on Thursday agreed to let voters decide in the next statewide election on restricting the ability of government to take land using its power of eminent domain. The bill passed 104-15 with broad, bipartisan support.

It now goes to the state Senate, where its prospects are not clear. If the Senate goes along, the issue could be on ballots in the next statewide elections, which would be in either November (if there is a statewide bond referendum) or May 2008.

Under the House bill, government agencies would still have the power to take property for the public's use -- a school, a road, a water treatment plant.

But governments in the future would have to negotiate with property owners when assembling land for economic development projects.

Supporters in the House said passage was a victory for the little guy.

"When you buy that home or that property, you need to know that the government can't just come and take it away from you and give it to a Wal-Mart or something like that where they'll make a profit off your land," said Rep. Jim Harrell, a Surry County Democrat. "We've seen out there some reverse Robin Hood -- taking from the poor and giving to the rich."

It's becoming more common across the nation to see public-private partnerships where land is taken and then leased by the government to a private entity. It hasn't been as common in North Carolina, though officials cited in documents a transportation facility in the Triad leased by FedEx as one example.

Officials at the Triangle Transit Authority and other agencies with plans to possibly piece together land for use by private developers were studying the bill.

The action in the House on Thursday was prompted by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 in a controversial case from Connecticut in 2005 that the government can seize property to foster economic development when a fair price is paid.

Many states, including South Carolina, have responded with tougher state laws or constitutional amendments to restrict that.

Others have resisted changes, saying the court was right to look out for the wider public good in the form of jobs, tax revenues and other benefits. Virginia is one that has looked at changes but did not make them.

Opponents in the House argued the bill could hurt needed economic development deals. They contend existing North Carolina law is strong enough to prevent a government from seizing land without an overriding public benefit. Some also alleged it was a political tactic, led by Republicans, to put on the ballot an issue that has been closely followed on conservative talk-radio shows, helping with voter turnout.

Rep. Paul Stam of Wake County, the Republican leader in the House, was a primary advocate.

"We just want to seal this as a fundamental right of people -- the government can't take your land and give it to someone else," Stam said.

The first major vote on the bill was late Wednesday in the House, and it passed overwhelmingly.

A handful changed their minds for Thursday's final vote, one of them Rep. Jennifer Weiss, a Wake Democrat. Weiss said that on second thought there was no reason to act now and that supporting the bill for political reasons was not enough to allow alterations of the constitution.

"If you really are talking about amending the constitution and you're not quite sure it's the right thing to do, I would say: Think twice," she said.

Voters would be asked to insert wording in the constitution next to an ancient clause from the Magna Carta and post-Civil War language that ensures no person shall be subject to discrimination by the state based on race, color, religion or national origin.

The proposed language says: "Private property shall not be taken except for a public use, including preservation for that use."

Supporters said the phrase "public use" is extremely restrictive. Many existing laws allow for eminent domain for a "public purpose" or "public benefit." Such language is a large loophole, argued Rep. Dan Blue, a Wake Democrat and supporter.

All of its possible effects are not clear, and legislative researchers Thursday were seeking broad input before the Senate would take up the bill.

As is, the amendment apparently would outlaw future public-private partnerships like one forged this year by the Triangle Transit Authority and Cherokee Investment Partners, a Raleigh-based equity firm. TTA and Cherokee plan to mingle private capital with publicly owned land to build urban clusters of homes and businesses around station sites for a proposed rail transit line through Durham, Research Triangle Park, Cary and Raleigh.

(Staff writer Bruce Siceloff contributed to this report.)

Staff writer J. Andrew Curliss can be reached at 829-4840 or acurliss@newsobserver.com.
Staff writer Bruce Siceloff contributed to this report.
http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/579612.html

They should also put a contingency on the public use aspect and say that any property seized for the purpose of constructing a public asset, such as a road, water treatment plant, etc, cannot be funded by, sold to, or controlled by a private entity, especially a foreign one.

Originally Posted by Kate

They should also put a contingency on the public use aspect and say that any property seized for the purpose of constructing a public asset, such as a road, water treatment plant, etc, cannot be funded by, sold to, or controlled by a private entity, especially a foreign one.

Thats a great idea..