Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Vast Majority of House, including Democrats, Support Private Property Protection Amendment

Release from Rep. Paul Stam:

Republican leaders in the General Assembly chided the Democratic majority, Tuesday, for delays in considering a state constitutional amendment strictly limiting government power to take land for other than a “public purpose.”


“When there’s a consensus, that’s the time to act,” said House Republican Leader Paul “Skip” Stam (R-Wake). Ninety Six sponsors have signed on to House Bill 878, which would send offer voters an amendment to the constitution. Nationwide, the fallout from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. New London, in 2005, has inspired states to reaffirm protections for private property by setting limits on eminent domain.


In Kelo, the High Court ruled, in certain cases, local governments can exercise eminent domain to seize private property and resell the land for a private purpose. House Bill 878 could restrict this practice in North Carolina and join other states in offering a jury trial in disputes.


In 2006, the General Assembly passed legislation to revoking a number of local exceptions granting a few cities the authority to exercise eminent domain for private purposes. Stam said the lack of constitutional limits would inevitably lead to attempts to grant similar exceptions again, “one year or four years from now.”


House Bill 878 has ninety-six of one hundred twenty House Members as sponsors, including two-thirds of House Democrats. Senate Republican Leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) said the bill languishing in committee, despite overwhelming bipartisan support, illustrates the concentration of power in the hands of a few and how it can be used to thwart the will of the majority through a majority of their elected representatives. All but one House Republican and two-thirds of House Democrats are co-sponsors of the proposed amendment.


Stam and Berger also cited a study released by the Institute of Justice indicating African Americans suffered a disproportionate effect from the exercise of eminent domain.


Eminent Domain & African Americans: What is the Price of the Commons?

No comments: