In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial 2005 Kelo v. City of New London decision, dozens of state legislatures adopted additional protections for private property owners threatened by the abuse of eminent domain.
A proposed amendment to Virginia’s state constitution requiring landowners to receive fair-market compensation for their property recently passed both houses of the General Assembly for the second time, as required by law. The proposed amendment also requires government entities or government-regulated utilities to prove that a proposed taking of private land is for a truly public use; to take only enough property absolutely necessary for that use; and to prevent Kelo-type abuses in which private land is seized for the benefit of private developers, while “public use” is defined as an expanded tax base.
Recommended Stories
A second vote in the General Assembly to place the proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot for final voter approval passed the House of Delegates by a vote of 83-14. To their great discredit, these members of the Northern Virginia delegation voted against putting the eminent domain amendment on the ballot: Delegates Robert Brink, D-Arlington, Charniele Herring, D-Alexandria, Patrick Hope, D-Arlington, Kaye Kory, D-Falls Church, Ken Plum, D-Reston, Tom Rust, R-Herndon, James Scott, D-Merrifield, Mark Sickles, D-Franconia, and Scott Surovell, D-Mount Vernon.
Voting “nay” in the Senate were Sens. George Barker, D-Alexandria, Chuck Colgan, D-Manassas, Adam Ebbin, D-Alexandria, Barbara Favola, D-Arlington, Mark Herring, D-Leesburg, Janet Howell, D-Reston, David Marsden, D-Burke, Toddy Puller, D-Mount Vernon, and Dick Saslaw, D-Springfield. By trying to prevent their own constituents from voting on this important issue, these legislators obviously did not have their best interests at heart.
The fight over eminent domain in Richmond is still not over. Tax-supported lobbyists from the Virginia Association of Counties and the Virginia Municipal League are currently pressuring legislators to change the accompanying statutory language and water down the definition of “public access” and “loss of business profits” in an effort to dilute. The clear intent of the proposed constitutional amendment and make it easier for them to seize private property without just compensation as required by the Fifth Amendment. Even in a Republican-controlled legislature, deals are reportedly being made to shift the advantage to government officials and private developers, while those with a public record of championing private property rights are being shut out of the negotiations. The “takings” crowd should not be allowed to prevail.
