THE SUIT / STOLLE / MCDONNELL / FAKE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
BILL
The
most obvious reform needed in Virginia in the wake of Kelo v. New London
was to change the language in the Virginia Constitution defining “public
use”. Article 1, Section 11, in part
states:
“….The General
Assembly shall not pass …. any law whereby private property shall be taken or
damaged for public uses, without just compensation, the term "public
uses" to be defined by the General Assembly.”
This language was thought to provide
no protection whatsoever from the whims of the legislature.
The Republican leadership on this
topic decided to add this language to the end of Section 11 of the Bill of
Rights:
“…, but shall not include the taking of private property for the
primary purpose of economic development or tax enhancement, …”
This may sound good and attract votes and provide fodder for campaign
speeches, but it is exactly the wrong way to approach this issue.
Since the General Assembly
only allowed for clearing blighted neighborhoods prior to passing this
amendment, the legal effect of the proposed amendment is to expand the
potential use of eminent domain on the ground now without saying so. The use of the phrase “primary purpose”
invites the use of other alleged motives and is the very leverage city councils
will use to expand the notion of “public use” to some theory beyond just ending
blight. Therefore, if the right
theories are offered by condemners, this is a potential change in the law
expanding the scope for the condemnation of perfectly fine homes and
businesses.
I understand this
constitutional amendment has passed both houses. At best, it is a waste of paper.
More likely, over time, the proposed amendment would become a lever for
expanding the power of the state rather than restraining it.
Doing nothing to the
Virginia Constitution is better than planting the seeds for a judge down to
road to rule in favor of greater state power because this amendment was passed.
Libertarians should oppose the passage of this
amendment in Richmond and in the later voter referendum required to change the
constitution.
The
Republican general statute on condemnation, up front, does nothing to alter the
powers of Redevelopment and Housing Authorities to condemn properties in
blighted neighborhoods that do not violate the building code. It goes on in convoluted words and
references to other sections of the code to list sundry public uses justifying
condemnation already in practice.
Delegate
Suit admits her general bill does next to nothing to change existing
condemnation practices. My question is:
why is the bill so long and involved if it is trying to do nothing? The bill, after all, was drafted by her
government committee which is filled with condemnation special interest
pleaders.
On this bill, too, why
appear to do something when you admit you are doing next to nothing and might,
in fact, be slipping in some special interest largesse in the process? At best, the bill is a waste of paper and
ink from the citizens’ point of view.
Oppose this fake bill
as just that.
THE
JOANNOU CONDEMNATION GENERAL STATUTE
For
purposes of present policy, the Joannou bill returns Virginia to the law prior
to Berman v. Parker. Unless
changed by the General Assembly in the future, the condemnation of homes and
buildings up to code by housing authorities for transfer to developers will no
longer be allowed. Land will no longer
be taken by the State to be later given to some other citizen for their private
use, profit and enjoyment. The bill
goes well beyond the dissent of Judge O’Connor in the Kelo case and is
truly revolutionary in expanding the freedom to own real property in Virginia.
The
many other functions of Virginia cities and Housing & Redevelopment
Authorities are unchanged by the bill, including the duty to condemn buildings
that do not comply with the building code.
