Friday, May 04, 2007
Rally Against Forced Annexation on May 9
A number of organizations are sponsoring a rally against forced annexation. The rally will be held May 9 at the legislature. Here are the details from StopNCAnnexation.com.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
HB 878 NOT Discussed at Yesterday's Rules Committee Meeting
I just spoke with Dot Crocker, the Rules Committee Clerk (the committee is chaired by Rep. Bill Owens). HB 878 (the eminent domain amendment) was NOT discussed at yesterday's Rules Committee meeting.
When asked if the bill would be discussed at the next meeting, she said, "I don't know, I haven't been given the agenda. I don't even know when the next meeting is. They are called meetings, not regular meetings."
We encourage you to contact legislative leaders and members of the Rules Committee and tell them that HB 878, the eminent domain amendment, needs to be brought to the floor for a vote.
- NCPRC Staff
When asked if the bill would be discussed at the next meeting, she said, "I don't know, I haven't been given the agenda. I don't even know when the next meeting is. They are called meetings, not regular meetings."
We encourage you to contact legislative leaders and members of the Rules Committee and tell them that HB 878, the eminent domain amendment, needs to be brought to the floor for a vote.
- NCPRC Staff
Thursday, April 26, 2007
HB 878 (Eminent Domain Amendment) NOT on Rules Committee's Agenda for May 1
The House Rules Committee -- the one in which House Bill 878 (eminent domain amendment) is stuck -- is meeting on May 1. Their agenda, as distributed via e-mail by Rules Clerk Dot Crocker this morning, is below. As you can see, HB 878 is not on the agenda for the meeting, lending further credence to the idea that the legislative leadership is intent on killing this amendment without allowing to to come to the floor for a vote.
COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE AND BILL SPONSOR NOTIFICATION
2007-2008 SESSION
You are hereby notified that the Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House will meet as follows:
DAY & DATE: Tuesday, May 1, 2007
TIME: 12:30 p.m.
LOCATION: LOB 421
COMMENTS: The following bills will be considered:
BILL NO. SHORT TITLE SPONSOR
HB 1341 Thalian Assoc./NC Community Theatre. Representative McComas Representative Justice Representative Wright
HJR 1437 Honor Town of Goldston. Representative Love, Sr.
HJR 1796 Observe Real Estate Commission's Anniversary. Representative Howard Representative Owens, Jr. Representative Brubaker Representative Goforth
SJR 1035 April as Landscape Architect Month. Senator Queen
Respectfully,
Representative Owens, Chair
I hereby certify this notice was filed by the committee assistant at the following offices at 12:15 p.m.o’clock on April 26, 2007.
X Principal Clerk
X Reading Clerk – House Chamber
Dot Crocker (Rules Clerk)
NORTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE AND BILL SPONSOR NOTIFICATION
2007-2008 SESSION
You are hereby notified that the Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House will meet as follows:
DAY & DATE: Tuesday, May 1, 2007
TIME: 12:30 p.m.
LOCATION: LOB 421
COMMENTS: The following bills will be considered:
BILL NO. SHORT TITLE SPONSOR
HB 1341 Thalian Assoc./NC Community Theatre. Representative McComas Representative Justice Representative Wright
HJR 1437 Honor Town of Goldston. Representative Love, Sr.
HJR 1796 Observe Real Estate Commission's Anniversary. Representative Howard Representative Owens, Jr. Representative Brubaker Representative Goforth
SJR 1035 April as Landscape Architect Month. Senator Queen
Respectfully,
Representative Owens, Chair
I hereby certify this notice was filed by the committee assistant at the following offices at 12:15 p.m.o’clock on April 26, 2007.
X Principal Clerk
X Reading Clerk – House Chamber
Dot Crocker (Rules Clerk)
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Act Today: Tell the Legislative Leadership to bring HB 878 up for a vote
The following is the text of an email from Kieran Shanahan, Chairman of the N.C. Property Rights Coalition:
If you share my belief that private property is a fundamental right of Americans, please take action TODAY.
On March 15, a bipartisan bill to protect our private property from unjust seizure by governments was introduced in the N.C. House. Four days later this bill, HB 878, was referred to the Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House. It is still stuck in that committee.
House Bill 878 has a total of 96 sponsors and co-sponsors. This means that 80% of House members have signed onto this legislation. 80% of House members have sponsored HB 878 -- and yet the legislative leadership has not brought it to the floor for a vote.
Please take action TODAY by contacting key House leaders.Please contact the legislative leaders below and tell them House Bill 878 deserves a vote on the House floor. Please be respectful and professional as you exercise your right to make your voice heard. Click on the House member's name for a link that includes their contact information. You can contact them via e-mail, phone, and/or U.S. Mail.
Rep. Joe Hackney, Speaker of the House
Rep. Bill Owens, Chair of the Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House. Rep. Owens is listed as a co-sponsor of HB 878.
Rep. Rick Glazier. Vice Chair of the Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House.
Rep. Dewey Hill. Vice Chair of the Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House. Rep. Hill is listed as a co-sponsor of HB 878.
Rep. Paul Luebke. Vice Chair of the Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House.
Rep. Deborah Ross. Vice Chair of the Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House
Click here for a complete list of committee members, with links to their contact information.
Please take action TODAY by contacting your House member: Use the links below to find out which district you are in and obtain your representative's contact information. Contact them and tell them to tell Speaker Hackney that House Bill 878 deserves a vote on the House floor.
Please take action TODAY and make your voice heard.
As citizens, we must unite to protect our private property rights. Now is the time to make your voice heard.
If you share my belief that private property is a fundamental right of Americans, please take action TODAY.
On March 15, a bipartisan bill to protect our private property from unjust seizure by governments was introduced in the N.C. House. Four days later this bill, HB 878, was referred to the Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House. It is still stuck in that committee.
House Bill 878 has a total of 96 sponsors and co-sponsors. This means that 80% of House members have signed onto this legislation. 80% of House members have sponsored HB 878 -- and yet the legislative leadership has not brought it to the floor for a vote.
Please take action TODAY by contacting key House leaders.Please contact the legislative leaders below and tell them House Bill 878 deserves a vote on the House floor. Please be respectful and professional as you exercise your right to make your voice heard. Click on the House member's name for a link that includes their contact information. You can contact them via e-mail, phone, and/or U.S. Mail.
Rep. Joe Hackney, Speaker of the House
Rep. Bill Owens, Chair of the Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House. Rep. Owens is listed as a co-sponsor of HB 878.
Rep. Rick Glazier. Vice Chair of the Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House.
Rep. Dewey Hill. Vice Chair of the Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House. Rep. Hill is listed as a co-sponsor of HB 878.
Rep. Paul Luebke. Vice Chair of the Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House.
Rep. Deborah Ross. Vice Chair of the Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House
Click here for a complete list of committee members, with links to their contact information.
Please take action TODAY by contacting your House member: Use the links below to find out which district you are in and obtain your representative's contact information. Contact them and tell them to tell Speaker Hackney that House Bill 878 deserves a vote on the House floor.
Click here to find out which House and Senate districts you reside in
Contact info for N.C. House Members
Contact info for NC. Senate Members
Contact info for N.C. House Members
Contact info for NC. Senate Members
The House leadership would have us believe that a legislative solution is good enough to protect our private property rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. Legislatures change, and a legislative solution can easily be changed by those elected in the future. We need a constitutional amendment that will stand the test of time. Simply put, our private property rights are too important to trust to the whims of future legislators.
Please take action TODAY and make your voice heard.
As citizens, we must unite to protect our private property rights. Now is the time to make your voice heard.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Property Rights Bills -- Bottled Up in Committee?
It appears that the legislative leadership is again attempting to stop any efforts to allow North Carolinians to vote on an amendment to prevent eminent domain abuse. Eminent Domain amendments have been introduced in both chambers. Neither bill has come to a vote; they are stuck in committee.
The House version of the bill, HB 878, has 96 sponsors and co-sponsors. There are 120 members in the House, meaning that 80% of House Members have signed onto this legislation. 80% of House members have signed onto this bill, yet it has still not come up for a vote.
This is an important issue. Property rights are one of the fundamental rights of a free society. A supermajority of House members have signed onto this bill. It deserves to be heard.
The House version of the bill, HB 878, has 96 sponsors and co-sponsors. There are 120 members in the House, meaning that 80% of House Members have signed onto this legislation. 80% of House members have signed onto this bill, yet it has still not come up for a vote.
This is an important issue. Property rights are one of the fundamental rights of a free society. A supermajority of House members have signed onto this bill. It deserves to be heard.
Friday, April 13, 2007
N.C. Court of Appeals Amplified Annexation Ruling
From Carolina Journal Online:
Case involving Weddington elaborates on minimum services required
By Michael Lowrey
April 13, 2007
RALEIGH — In a recent ruling, the state’s second highest court upheld an annexation by the Union County town of Weddington, holding that the provision of increased police protection by itself is enough to allow for annexation.
The Weddington case amplified a landmark decision issued in early 2006, when the N.C. Supreme Court held that municipalities must provide actual services of benefit to landowners they wish to annex. The high court, however, didn’t define what qualified as the minimum services necessary to allow for annexation. more...
Case involving Weddington elaborates on minimum services required
By Michael Lowrey
April 13, 2007
RALEIGH — In a recent ruling, the state’s second highest court upheld an annexation by the Union County town of Weddington, holding that the provision of increased police protection by itself is enough to allow for annexation.
The Weddington case amplified a landmark decision issued in early 2006, when the N.C. Supreme Court held that municipalities must provide actual services of benefit to landowners they wish to annex. The high court, however, didn’t define what qualified as the minimum services necessary to allow for annexation. more...
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
AP Article: NC legislators want eminent domain amendment put to voters in '07
Associated Press article, posted on the WWAY-TV3 Web site: NC legislators want eminent domain amendment put to voters in '07.
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.
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
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
“Eminent Domain & African Americans: What is the Price of the Commons?”
Berger, Stam: Eminent Domain Reform Needed
Eminent Domain reform was the primary topic of this morning's press conference by N.C. House Minority Leader Paul Stam and N.C. Senate Minority Leader Phil Berger. Below is a press release from Sen. Berger's office.
Eminent Domain: Press Release from Sen. Phil Berger's Office
Senate Republican Leader Phil Berger (R-District 26) and House Republican Leader Paul Stam (R-District 37) today held a press conference to discuss eminent domain, the inherent power of government to seize a citizen's private property without consent. A recent United States Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. New London, created much concern because the Court expanded the concept of a "public purpose" for which condemnation could be used. The Court held that the United States Constitution's Fifth Amendment did not protect private property owners from a government taking of property for economic development purposes. An economic development condemnation permits the taking of property from a private citizen with the understanding that such property would ultimately be conveyed by the government to another and is justified by the expectation of greater tax revenue to the government. In light of that decision, many states took steps to insure that state constitutions offered protection to owners of private property from such takings. Republican Senate and House members have introduced bills that address the need for additional legal and constitutional safeguards in North Carolina.
Senator Fred Smith (R-District 12) has introduced Senate Bill 38, An Act to Amend the Constitution of North Carolina to Prohibit Eminent Domain From Being Used for Economic Development Purposes. The bill calls for amendment of the North Carolina Constitution to prohibit eminent domain takings for economic development purposes.
Senator Berger introduced Senate Bill 766; that bill protects non-profit organizations whose property is condemned. The bill provides that replacement value is an appropriate measure of fair market value in cases involving property owned by not for profit entities.
Senator Eddie Goodall (R-District 35) introduced Senate Bill 704, Eminent Domain Attorneys' Fees/Costs, which requires the condemnor to pay attorneys’ fees and costs of court if the final judgment is more than the amount deposited (offered) by the condemnor.
Senator Berger made the following statement:
“The people of North Carolina were right to be concerned about the Kelo decision. Thus far, the General Assembly has responded with half measures which fail to adequately protect private property. This is in spite of the fact that individual members state their opposition to a Kelo like result here. In fact, in the House ninety-six members have co-sponsored a bill (House Bill 878) that would allow North Carolinians to vote to amend the State Constitution and prohibit economic development condemnations. Despite protestations to the contrary and assurances that Democrat leaders have learned lessons from the past, not much has changed as Democrat legislative leaders appear to be in no hurry to move the bill from the House Rules Committee. Some have asserted that enough was done last year to protect private property. Such actions and hollow assurances are seen by many as evidence that the post-Black Democrat leadership handles popular legislation much like its predecessor. People have to wonder which special interest is being protected in this case. In my view, the Legislature has a responsibility to protect private citizens not special interests.”
Eminent Domain: Press Release from Sen. Phil Berger's Office
Senate Republican Leader Phil Berger (R-District 26) and House Republican Leader Paul Stam (R-District 37) today held a press conference to discuss eminent domain, the inherent power of government to seize a citizen's private property without consent. A recent United States Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. New London, created much concern because the Court expanded the concept of a "public purpose" for which condemnation could be used. The Court held that the United States Constitution's Fifth Amendment did not protect private property owners from a government taking of property for economic development purposes. An economic development condemnation permits the taking of property from a private citizen with the understanding that such property would ultimately be conveyed by the government to another and is justified by the expectation of greater tax revenue to the government. In light of that decision, many states took steps to insure that state constitutions offered protection to owners of private property from such takings. Republican Senate and House members have introduced bills that address the need for additional legal and constitutional safeguards in North Carolina.
Senator Fred Smith (R-District 12) has introduced Senate Bill 38, An Act to Amend the Constitution of North Carolina to Prohibit Eminent Domain From Being Used for Economic Development Purposes. The bill calls for amendment of the North Carolina Constitution to prohibit eminent domain takings for economic development purposes.
Senator Berger introduced Senate Bill 766; that bill protects non-profit organizations whose property is condemned. The bill provides that replacement value is an appropriate measure of fair market value in cases involving property owned by not for profit entities.
Senator Eddie Goodall (R-District 35) introduced Senate Bill 704, Eminent Domain Attorneys' Fees/Costs, which requires the condemnor to pay attorneys’ fees and costs of court if the final judgment is more than the amount deposited (offered) by the condemnor.
Senator Berger made the following statement:
“The people of North Carolina were right to be concerned about the Kelo decision. Thus far, the General Assembly has responded with half measures which fail to adequately protect private property. This is in spite of the fact that individual members state their opposition to a Kelo like result here. In fact, in the House ninety-six members have co-sponsored a bill (House Bill 878) that would allow North Carolinians to vote to amend the State Constitution and prohibit economic development condemnations. Despite protestations to the contrary and assurances that Democrat leaders have learned lessons from the past, not much has changed as Democrat legislative leaders appear to be in no hurry to move the bill from the House Rules Committee. Some have asserted that enough was done last year to protect private property. Such actions and hollow assurances are seen by many as evidence that the post-Black Democrat leadership handles popular legislation much like its predecessor. People have to wonder which special interest is being protected in this case. In my view, the Legislature has a responsibility to protect private citizens not special interests.”
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Civitas: Private Property Rights Up In Smoke?
The following is taken from an e-mail distributed by the John William Pope Civitas Institute:
In one of the most intrusive overreaches by government since the Kelo decision, the Judiciary I Committee of the North Carolina House of Representatives passed a bill (HB 259) that would outlaw smoking in all workplaces, restaurants, bars and private clubs. Passed last week by a vote of 9-4, the bill is being pushed by Democrat Majority Leader Hugh Holliman (D-Davidson), and will be considered by the full House in the near future. While seemingly altruistic in nature, this bill’s draconian scope would eliminate a property owner’s right to allow a legal activity to take place on his premises.
Let’s get a couple of issues off the table immediately. First, smoking is — at least currently — legal. Second, smoking is bad for your health and significantly increases the likelihood of certain forms of cancer. Third, smoking in confined spaces is bothersome to others. Secondhand smoke is smelly, irritating and, generally, a nuisance, and most people, including most smokers, don’t like being exposed to it. Fourth, prolonged exposure to secondhand smoke may have health risks, and people should not be subjected to it unwittingly.
For the complete Perspective, please click the link below.
www.jwpcivitasinstitute.org/keylinks/ConservativePerspective/Smoking%20Ban.pdf
In one of the most intrusive overreaches by government since the Kelo decision, the Judiciary I Committee of the North Carolina House of Representatives passed a bill (HB 259) that would outlaw smoking in all workplaces, restaurants, bars and private clubs. Passed last week by a vote of 9-4, the bill is being pushed by Democrat Majority Leader Hugh Holliman (D-Davidson), and will be considered by the full House in the near future. While seemingly altruistic in nature, this bill’s draconian scope would eliminate a property owner’s right to allow a legal activity to take place on his premises.
Let’s get a couple of issues off the table immediately. First, smoking is — at least currently — legal. Second, smoking is bad for your health and significantly increases the likelihood of certain forms of cancer. Third, smoking in confined spaces is bothersome to others. Secondhand smoke is smelly, irritating and, generally, a nuisance, and most people, including most smokers, don’t like being exposed to it. Fourth, prolonged exposure to secondhand smoke may have health risks, and people should not be subjected to it unwittingly.
For the complete Perspective, please click the link below.
www.jwpcivitasinstitute.org/keylinks/ConservativePerspective/Smoking%20Ban.pdf
Sunday, March 25, 2007
New Web Site Aims to Stop the NC Home Tax.
The N.C. Association of Realtors has launched a new Web site to help stop a proposed NC Home Tax. The domain is: itsabadidea.org.
Here is the basic "about us" info from the home page: "Welcome to our site, which is the voice representing hundreds of thousands of North Carolina homeowners who oppose home taxes. Bills now being considered in the State Legislature would force the home sellers to pay a 1% sales tax. Taxing the equity in our homes - it's a bad idea. Get the facts about this issue and learn how you can help stop the NC Home Tax."
This site is worth a look.
Here is the basic "about us" info from the home page: "Welcome to our site, which is the voice representing hundreds of thousands of North Carolina homeowners who oppose home taxes. Bills now being considered in the State Legislature would force the home sellers to pay a 1% sales tax. Taxing the equity in our homes - it's a bad idea. Get the facts about this issue and learn how you can help stop the NC Home Tax."
This site is worth a look.
Kelo land sits undeveloped
Special thanks to the folks at the John Locke Foundation for posting this morsel: apparently, the private property which the now infamous Kelo decision allowed the city of New London, CT to seize from its rightful owners is sitting undeveloped. Click here for the article.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
N&O: Tool to fight blight divides
Interesting article in Tax-Increment Financing (TIF):
3/23/07 - RALEIGH - When Kane Realty asked Raleigh officials for $75 million to help build North Hills East last year, it kicked off a debate within City Hall about the appropriateness of lending money to developers. more...
3/23/07 - RALEIGH - When Kane Realty asked Raleigh officials for $75 million to help build North Hills East last year, it kicked off a debate within City Hall about the appropriateness of lending money to developers. more...
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Update on Senate Bill 38
Senate Bill 38, an eminent domain amendment introduced by Senator Fred Smith, was sent to the Ways & Means Committee on February 12.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Where do House Rules Committee Members Stand on Property Rights?
Earlier, we reported that House Bill 878 had been referred to the Committee Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House on 03/19/2007.
Below is a list of the committee's leadership and members, along with a breakdown of where they stand on the issue of a constitutional amendment to prevent eminent domain abuse. If the legislator in question responded to our 2006 legislative candidate survey, a link to their response is provided below.
Chairman: Rep. Bill Owens (D-Elizabeth City). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Vice Chair: Rep. Rick Glazier (D-Fayetteville). Did not respond to candidate survey.
Vice Chair: Rep. Dewey Hill (D-Whiteville). Supports Amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Vice Chair: Rep. Paul Luebke (D-Durham). Did not respond to candidate survey.
Vice Chair: Rep. Deborah Ross (D-Raleigh). Did not respond to candidate survey.
Committee Members:
Rep. Jeff Barnhart (R-Concord). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Larry Bell (D-Clinton). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Dan Blue (R-Raleigh). Supports amendment (primary sponsored of HB 878).
Rep. Harold Brubaker (R-Asheboro). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Debbie Clary (R-Cherryville). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Nelson Cole (D-Reidsville). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Jim Crawford (D-Oxford). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Jerry Dockham (D -Lexington). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Jim Harrell (D-Elkin). Supports amendment (primary sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Hugh Holliman (D-Lexington). Did not respond to candidate survey.
Rep. Julia Howard (R-Mocksville). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Verla Insko (D-Chapel Hill). Did not respond to candidate survey.
Rep. Maggie Jeffus (D-Greensboro). Did not respond to candidate survey.
Rep. Carolyn Justice (R-Hampstead). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Carolyn Justus (R-Henderson Cty). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Jimmy Love (D-Sanford). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Danny McComas (R-Wilmington). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Marian McLawhorn (D-Grifton). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Mickey Michaux (D-Durham). Did not respond to candidate survey, but known to oppose amendment. During last session, said amendment was dead when it was referred to his committee.
Rep. Louis Pate (R-Mount Olive). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Karen Ray (R-Mooresville). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Mitchell Setzer (R-Catawba). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Fred Steen (R-Landis). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Jennifer Weiss (D-Cary). Did not respond to candidate survey.
Rep. Doug Yongue (D-Laurinburg). Did not respond to candidate survey.
Below is a list of the committee's leadership and members, along with a breakdown of where they stand on the issue of a constitutional amendment to prevent eminent domain abuse. If the legislator in question responded to our 2006 legislative candidate survey, a link to their response is provided below.
Chairman: Rep. Bill Owens (D-Elizabeth City). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Vice Chair: Rep. Rick Glazier (D-Fayetteville). Did not respond to candidate survey.
Vice Chair: Rep. Dewey Hill (D-Whiteville). Supports Amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Vice Chair: Rep. Paul Luebke (D-Durham). Did not respond to candidate survey.
Vice Chair: Rep. Deborah Ross (D-Raleigh). Did not respond to candidate survey.
Committee Members:
Rep. Jeff Barnhart (R-Concord). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Larry Bell (D-Clinton). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Dan Blue (R-Raleigh). Supports amendment (primary sponsored of HB 878).
Rep. Harold Brubaker (R-Asheboro). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Debbie Clary (R-Cherryville). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Nelson Cole (D-Reidsville). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Jim Crawford (D-Oxford). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Jerry Dockham (D -Lexington). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Jim Harrell (D-Elkin). Supports amendment (primary sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Hugh Holliman (D-Lexington). Did not respond to candidate survey.
Rep. Julia Howard (R-Mocksville). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Verla Insko (D-Chapel Hill). Did not respond to candidate survey.
Rep. Maggie Jeffus (D-Greensboro). Did not respond to candidate survey.
Rep. Carolyn Justice (R-Hampstead). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Carolyn Justus (R-Henderson Cty). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Jimmy Love (D-Sanford). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Danny McComas (R-Wilmington). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Marian McLawhorn (D-Grifton). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Mickey Michaux (D-Durham). Did not respond to candidate survey, but known to oppose amendment. During last session, said amendment was dead when it was referred to his committee.
Rep. Louis Pate (R-Mount Olive). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Karen Ray (R-Mooresville). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Mitchell Setzer (R-Catawba). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Fred Steen (R-Landis). Supports amendment (co-sponsor of HB 878).
Rep. Jennifer Weiss (D-Cary). Did not respond to candidate survey.
Rep. Doug Yongue (D-Laurinburg). Did not respond to candidate survey.
Update on House Bill 878 (Eminent Domain Amendment)
According to the N.C. General Assembly Web site, House Bill 878 (the bipartisan eminent domain amendment introduced last week) was referred to the Committee Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House on 03/19/2007.
Last year's legislative leadership sent a similar bill to the rules committee to die. We hope this year's House leadership will do the right thing: allow this bill, which has more than 80 sponsors and co-sponsors, to receive a fair hearing on the House floor.
The people of North Carolina deserve nothing less.
Last year's legislative leadership sent a similar bill to the rules committee to die. We hope this year's House leadership will do the right thing: allow this bill, which has more than 80 sponsors and co-sponsors, to receive a fair hearing on the House floor.
The people of North Carolina deserve nothing less.
Study: Kelo-Type Takings Bad for the Economy
Daren Bakst of the John Locke Foundation posted the following on the foundation's Blog, The Locker Room. Click here for the link.
Kelo-Type Takings: Bad for the Economy
Kelo-Type Takings: Bad for the Economy
This interesting and concise study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is worth a read. It does an excellent job of explaining the difference between a private and public good and using this difference as the distinction in understanding a "public use."
It also explains why economic development takings are bad for economic development. From the article's conclusion:
"Supporters of Kelo argue that using eminent domain for private development will spur economic growth. Although a lack of sufficient data currently prevents empirically testing the economic effects of eminent domain described in this article, economic theory certainly suggests that eminent domain used for private economic development will likely result in a zero-sum gain and may actually hinder economic development in the local areas, as well as the region, rather than help."
Friday, March 16, 2007
Bipartisan Eminent Domain Amendment introduced in NC House
A bipartisan bill introduced in yesterday the N.C. House of Representatives would allow North Carolinians to vote on an amendment to protect our private property from eminent domain abuse. A similar amendment was proposed during the 2006 legislative session, but was sent to die in a committee.
House Bill 878 was introduced by Representatives Paul Stam (R-Wake), Dan Blue (D-Wake), David Lewis (R-Harnett) and Jim Harrell (D-Surry). According to a release from Rep. Stam, the bill has 81 additional co-sponsors.
It is our hope that this amendment will be given fair consideration by the legislative leadership.
Click here to view the text of the bill.
House Bill 878 was introduced by Representatives Paul Stam (R-Wake), Dan Blue (D-Wake), David Lewis (R-Harnett) and Jim Harrell (D-Surry). According to a release from Rep. Stam, the bill has 81 additional co-sponsors.
It is our hope that this amendment will be given fair consideration by the legislative leadership.
Click here to view the text of the bill.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Bill would give Wilmington eminent domain power for sewer
Senate Bill 354, filed Monday by Sen. Julia Boseman (D-New Hanover), would give eminent domain power to the City of Wilmington for a limited time and purposes. The bill would allow Wilmington city officials power to forcibly buy property to repair and expand the community's ailing sewer system is working its way through the state legislature.
Click for story from the Wilmington Star-News
Click for story from the Wilmington Star-News
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Senator Fred Smith Introduces Eminent Domain Amendment
State Senator Fred Smith (R-Johnston) has introduced a constitutional amendment (S38) to prevent the seizure of property by eminent domain for economic development purposes. The bill's co-sponsors include Senators Austin Allran, Tom Apodaca, Phil Berger, Stan Bingham, Harris Blake, Andrew C. Brock, Harry Brown, Don East, Jim Forrester, Eddie Goodall, Neal Hunt, Jim Jacumin, Ed Jones, Robert Pittenger, Jean Preston, Richard Stevens and Jerry Tillman.
Click here for more information about Senator Smith's proposed amendment.
Click here for more information about Senator Smith's proposed amendment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
