50 State Report Card - The Castle Coalition

More documents

Recommendations

Info

50statereport cardCastle CoalitionLEGISLATION REPORT CARDState:HawaiiInc.• Failed to p legislative reform.Hawaii produced a key court case in thehistory of eminent domain authority expansionand abuse. In Hawaii Housing Authorityv. Midkiff, the U.S. Supreme Court upheldan expansive definition of the “public use”provision, essentially reading the public useprovision to mean “public purpose,” as definedby the State Legislature.Many bills were filed that attempted toaddress Kelo-style takings. Unfortunately,Hawaii missed the chance to be a national leaderin restricting eminent domain abuse and theLegislature still needs to pass reform.15
50statereport cardCastle CoalitionLEGISLATION REPORT CARDState:Idaho• The state constitution has an extremely weak definition of publicuse and the courts have made it even worse.• Any reform in the legislation was voided by its exemption for“public and private us ... provided in the constitution.”Inc.Unlike many states, Idaho has relativelyweak constitutional language regarding theproperty rights guaranteed its citizens. Whilethe Idaho Constitution does require thatcondemned property be taken for a public use,it also says “any ... use necessary to the completedevelopment of the material resources of thestate, or the preservation of the health of itsinhabitants, is hereby declared to be a publicuse.” To the detriment of property owners inthe state, the Idaho Supreme Court has furtherweakened property rights by adopting aninterpretation of public use that is not tied to—and therefore not restrained by—any traditionalunderstanding.In 2006, the Idaho Legislature passedHouse Bill 555, which ostensibly adds to thestate’s existing law by providing limitationson eminent domain for private parties,urban renewal, or economic developmentpurposes. Unfortunately, the Legislature leftseveral loopholes, including one that allowscondemnations for “those public and privateuses for which eminent domain is expresslyprovided in the constitution of the State ofIdaho.” Thanks to the aforementioned broadlanguage of the Idaho Constitution and itsinterpretation by the state supreme court, thedoor to eminent domain abuse remains wideopen.In the November 2006 election, the statehad a citizen initiative, Proposition 2, on theballot that contained the same meager reformscontained in HB 555, but with the added (andvery controversial) element that would havelimited regulatory takings. In the absence ofmeaningful protection against eminent domainabuse and with the added confusion of theregulatory takings measure, the amendmentfailed to pass.House Bill 555Sponsored by: House Committee on State AffairsStatus: Signed into law on March 21, 2006.16
Page 2 and 3: 1 Synopsistable of contents& state
Page 4 and 5: 50state 50state report cardreport c
Page 6: Eminent domain authoritycarries wit
Page 12: 50statereport cardCastle CoalitionL
Page 16 and 17: 50statereport cardCastle CoalitionL
Page 38: 50statereport cardCastle CoalitionL
Page 59: Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

50 State Report Card - The Castle Coalition

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?