50 State Report Card - The Castle Coalition

More documents

Recommendations

Info

50statereport cardCastle CoalitionLEGISLATION REPORT CARDState:Illinois• The state failed to close its blight loophole by continuing to allowblight dignations by area using extremely vague factors.• Agricultural land was proteed from private development, butother properti remain at risk.Inc.Illinois presents another example ofeminent domain reform that sounds moreimpressive than it really is. The Illinois GeneralAssembly passed Senate Bill 3086 (2006),which purportedly limits the taking of privateproperty for private development. This mightbe technically true, as the new law generallydoes prohibit government officials fromcondemning property for private development.But the legislature built in exceptions thatsignificantly undermine the good that the billotherwise might have done. The new law stillallows the use of eminent domain to acquireproperty in a so-called blighted area. While atleast five factors must be present for an areato qualify as blighted, the vague and illogicallist of factors for a blighted area representsome of the worst examples in law, including“obsolescence,” “excessive vacancies,” “excessiveland coverage,” “deleterious layout,” and “lack ofcommunity planning.” The bill also still allowscondemnations for private development, aslong as economic development is a “secondarypurpose” to the primary purpose of urbanrenewal “to eliminate an existing affirmativeharm on society from slums to protect publichealth and safety.”Since the state’s statutes still allow entireareas to be designated blighted on accountof a few properties, the threat of eminentdomain abuse still looms large in Illinois. SB3086 did improve the situation by prohibitingthe seizure of “production agriculture” forprivate development and by requiring thegovernment to prove that an area is blightedbefore a condemnation can proceed. But unlesscitizens convince the General Assembly tocreate a tighter definition of blight and to assessproperties on a parcel-by-parcel basis, Illinoiswill not avoid eminent domain abuse similar tothat evidenced in Kelo.Senate Bill 3086Sponsored by: State Senator Susan GarrettStatus: Signed into law on July 28, 2006.17
50statereport cardCastle CoalitionLEGISLATION REPORT CARDState:Indiana• The legislation strengthened the definition of public use and thecriteria for condemnations.• Unfortunately, an exception for certified thnology parks meansonomic development is still prioritized over property rights.In an effort to make sure that Indiana’scitizens would not have to fear the same kindof eminent domain abuse perpetrated in NewLondon, Connecticut, the Indiana GeneralAssembly acted quickly to create a statecommission to study the use of eminent domainand ways of eliminating abuse. When all wassaid and done, the Legislature adopted HouseBill 1010 (2006), which provides meaningfulprotection against abuse. Thanks to theseconcerted efforts, Indiana’s reforms now providelawmakers nationwide an example of the kindof common sense reform that can and shouldhappen throughout the country.House Bill 1010, which sailed through bothlegislative houses with overwhelming support,redefines public use and provides objectivecriteria for the acquisition of property in mostsituations. These steps are vitally important,because most abuses of eminent domain areenabled by standards for public use and blightthat leave local governments ample room tocraft their own definitions, which many courtshave been hesitant to overrule. By clearlystating when eminent domain may and maynot be used, the Indiana General Assembly hasgiven the state’s property owners a significantmeasure of security against the unholy allianceof tax-hungry municipalities and land-hungrydevelopers.While this bill goes a long way towardpreventing eminent domain abuse, there is stillsome room for improvement. Importantly, thelegislature allowed an exception for certifiedtechnology parks, meaning that there arestill ways for the state legally to take privateproperty for another private party’s benefit.This is a loophole that should be closed. And,as always, it is important to remember thatstatutory protections are not as permanent asconstitutional ones. If Indiana is serious aboutforever guarding the fundamental rights of itscitizens, the General Assembly should introducea constitutional amendment to restrict anyfuture legislature from changing the protectionsin this bill.Inc.House Bill 1010Sponsored by: State Representative David WolkinsStatus: Signed into law on March 24, 2006.18
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?