House Vote Counters Eminent Domain Measure

Associated Press | November 4 2005
By JIM ABRAMS

COMMENT:
This is a major victory against those who would seek to completely
undermine property rights. Now we must lobby our representatives in
the Senate to support this legislation and curb this rampant
employment of "eminent domain" before it gets even more out of
control.

WASHINGTON - Conservative defenders of private property and liberal
protectors of the poor joined in an overwhelming House vote to prevent
local and state governments from seizing homes and businesses for use
in economic development projects.

The House legislation, passed 376-38, was in response to a widely
criticized 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court last June that allowed
eminent domain authority to be used to obtain land for tax
revenue-generating commercial purposes.

That decision, said the House's third-ranked Republican, Deborah Pryce
of Ohio, "dealt a blow to the rights of property owners across the
country."

The bill would withhold for two years all federal economic development
funds from states and localities that use economic development as a
rationale for property seizures. It also would bar the federal
government from using eminent domain powers for economic development.

It now goes to the Senate, where Sen. John Cornyn R-Texas, has
introduced similar legislation.

The ruling in Kelo v. City of New London allowed the Connecticut city
to exercise state eminent domain law to require several homeowners to
cede their property for commercial use.

Conservatives were in the forefront in arguing that this was a
dangerous interpretation of the "takings clause" in the Fifth
Amendment of the Constitution that allows the government to seize
property for public use, with just compensation.

"Governments should not be able to bulldoze a person's home or
business to benefit other individuals," said Rep. Henry Bonilla,
R-Texas.

Liberals warned that it could make it easier to tear down poor
neighborhoods. "We don't need you on this one," Rep. Maxine Waters,
D-Calif., said to those arguing that eminent domain can lead to
beneficial urban renewal projects. "We need you to respect the right
of those minorities and those poor people to hold on to what is their
own."

www.infowars.com

Bit of good news . . . .


David wrote:
House Vote Counters Eminent Domain Measure

Associated Press | November 4 2005
By JIM ABRAMS

COMMENT:
This is a major victory against those who would seek to completely
undermine property rights. Now we must lobby our representatives in
the Senate to support this legislation and curb this rampant
employment of "eminent domain" before it gets even more out of
control.

WASHINGTON - Conservative defenders of private property and liberal
protectors of the poor joined in an overwhelming House vote to prevent
local and state governments from seizing homes and businesses for use
in economic development projects.

The House legislation, passed 376-38, was in response to a widely
criticized 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court last June that allowed
eminent domain authority to be used to obtain land for tax
revenue-generating commercial purposes.

That decision, said the House's third-ranked Republican, Deborah Pryce
of Ohio, "dealt a blow to the rights of property owners across the
country."

The bill would withhold for two years all federal economic development
funds from states and localities that use economic development as a
rationale for property seizures. It also would bar the federal
government from using eminent domain powers for economic development.

It now goes to the Senate, where Sen. John Cornyn R-Texas, has
introduced similar legislation.

The ruling in Kelo v. City of New London allowed the Connecticut city
to exercise state eminent domain law to require several homeowners to
cede their property for commercial use.

Conservatives were in the forefront in arguing that this was a
dangerous interpretation of the "takings clause" in the Fifth
Amendment of the Constitution that allows the government to seize
property for public use, with just compensation.

"Governments should not be able to bulldoze a person's home or
business to benefit other individuals," said Rep. Henry Bonilla,
R-Texas.

Liberals warned that it could make it easier to tear down poor
neighborhoods. "We don't need you on this one," Rep. Maxine Waters,
D-Calif., said to those arguing that eminent domain can lead to
beneficial urban renewal projects. "We need you to respect the right
of those minorities and those poor people to hold on to what is their
own."

www.infowars.com