Re: Renters Getting Screwed - or Why EminentDomainisaDistraction
Marvin Gandall wrote:
Can anyone point to a state which is contemplating legislation with real teeth in it which would maintain the expropriation power but, crucially, limit it to purposes of public rather than private development? That would help persuade those like myself that this is campaign worth supporting.
I posted the link to the Institute for Justice’s model legislation. You can get links from there to actual bills. Here it is again.
Doug
As it turns out, this is pretty much what the Institute for Justice’s model law says http://castlecoalition.org/legislation/model/state_statute.html:
Requiring that Eminent Domain Be for Public Use and Defining Public Use Notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither this State nor any political subdivision thereof nor any other condemning entity shall use eminent domain unless it is necessary for a public use. Whenever property is condemned and will be used by a private party, the condemnor must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the use of eminent domain complies with this section and is reasonably necessary. Public use: The term “public use” shall only mean (1) the possession, occupation, and enjoyment of the land by the general public, or by public agencies; (2) the use of land for the creation or functioning of public utilities or common carriers; or (3) where the use of eminent domain (a)(i) removes a public nuisance; (ii) removes a structure that is beyond repair or unfit for human habitation or use; or (iii) is used to acquire abandoned property and (b) eliminates a direct threat to public health or safety caused by the property in its current condition*. The public benefits of economic development, including an increase in tax base, tax revenues, employment, general economic health, shall not constitute a public use.