11/ 21/ 2006
The Kelo v. New London Supreme Court decision, which granted local governments the power to seize private property in the name of economic development, has drawn a strong backlash from many of the country's state legislatures.
Since then, more than half of the states have addressed eminent domain by forming task forces, proposing and enacting new laws in states like Minnesota, where NFIB was a key driver of the legislation. In addition, property rights were the single biggest state ballot issue this November.
Twelve ballot initiatives aimed at overruling Kelo and restricting the government's ability to seize property and hand it over to private developers. Nine of them called for constitutional amendments restraining or eliminating the state's taking power. In some Western states, ballot initiatives proposed requirements that would force governments to pay property owners when regulations hurt property values.
Here's a rundown of what Election Day meant for property rights in some key states where NFIB supported initiatives:
Washington
Initiative 933 would require compensation when government regulation damages the use or value of private property, would forbid regulations that prohibit existing legal uses of private property and would provide exceptions or payments. Compensation would be for the fair market value of the loss, plus any costs or attorneys' fees if the eminent domain rule stays in place.
Michigan
Proposal 4 would amend the state constitution to make it clear that the term "public use" does not include taking private property for transfer to another private entity for the purpose of economic development or enhancement of local tax revenues.
Nevada
Question 2 would prohibit government from taking one private person's land and giving it to another, and would only allow eminent domain to be used to acquire land for public projects. In addition, it would require any land taken to be used within five years or revert to the original owner.
California
One of three states, including Arizona and Idaho, to combine eminent domain with regulatory takings. Proposition 90 would amend the California Constitution to discourage a Kelo-like outcome by expanding the definition of what constitutes "property," and by paying property owners for any substantial economic loss or devaluation resulting from enacting new laws or regulations.
NFIB.com
Download a copy of the complete poll at www.NFIB.com/research.
