<strong>50</strong>statereport card<strong>Castle</strong> <strong>Coalition</strong>LEGISLATION REPORT CARD<strong>State</strong>:Massachusetts• Failed to p legislative reform.Inc.<strong>The</strong> Massachusetts General Court hasseen a number of bills filed addressing eminentdomain abuse and responding to the Kelodecision. Unfortunately, legislators filedrelatively ineffectual legislation. Eminentdomain abuse continues throughout thestate, and although home rule allows localmunicipalities to pass their own eminentdomain protections, the legislature must passeminent domain reform to ensure uniformprotection for home and business owners.25
<strong>50</strong>statereport card<strong>Castle</strong> <strong>Coalition</strong>LEGISLATION REPORT CARD<strong>State</strong>:Michigan• A new, strong constitutional amendment fortifi good, rentcaselaw and means property rights are safer than they have beenin dad.• Blight must now be proved on an individual property basis.Michigan is an example of a state that wasnot content to rest on its laurels. Just threeyears ago the Michigan Supreme Court set thestandard for the rest of the country by emphaticallyrejecting the idea (which, ironically, the samecourt had championed in its earlier Poletowndecision) that private commercial development is aconstitutionally permissible justification for takingone private person’s property and transferringit to another private party. In the wake of Kelo,however, the Michigan Legislature determined toact decisively to ensure that Michiganders wouldnot have to worry about their rights.<strong>The</strong> result of the Legislature’s efforts wasSenate Joint Resolution E, an amendment to thestate constitution that prohibits “the taking ofprivate property for transfer to a private entityfor the purpose of economic development orenhancement of tax revenues.” Moreover, theamendment changed so-called blight law withinthe state, requiring blight to be determinedon a parcel-by-parcel basis and requiring thegovernment to prove by “clear and convincingevidence” that a property’s condition satisfies thedefinition of blight established by law. <strong>The</strong>se wereInc.Senate Joint Resolution ESponsored by: <strong>State</strong> Senator Tony StamasStatus: Passed by the legislature on December 13, 2005.Approved by voters on November 7, 2006.House Bills 5818, 5819, and <strong>50</strong>60Sponsored by: <strong>State</strong> Representatives Steve Tobocman,Leon Drolet, John Garfield, and Glenn SteilStatus: All signed into law on September 20, 2006.26significant, important changes to the existing lawsin Michigan.<strong>The</strong> resolution passed the House by a vote of106-0 and the Senate by 31-6. After being signedby the governor, the constitutional amendmentwas placed on the ballot for the November 2006election, where more than 80 percent of Michiganvoters approved the amendment.In addition to the constitutional amendment,Michigan’s Legislature also adopted a number ofbills that address condemnation procedure andcompensation. House Bills 5817, 5818, and 5819raised the cap on state-provided moving expensesfor individuals (but not businesses), allowedlow-income individuals to recover attorney’s feesfollowing an unsuccessful condemnation challenge,and outlined the process of surrendering property.House Bills 5820 and 5821 outlined procedures fordetermining and delivering compensation.Finally, House Bill <strong>50</strong>60 and companionSenate Bill 693 mirrored the language of theproposed constitutional amendment by alteringthe definition of public use to exclude economicdevelopment.House Bills 5820 and 5821Sponsored by: <strong>State</strong> Representatives LaMar Lemmons IIIand Bill McConicoStatus: Both signed into law on October 3, 2006.Senate Bill 693Sponsored by: <strong>State</strong> Senator Cameron BrownStatus: Signed into law on September 20, 2006.House Bills 6638 and 6639Sponsored by: <strong>State</strong> Representatives Lamar LemmonsIII, Steve Tobocman, and Leon DroletStatus: Both signed into law on January 8, 2007.
Change language