50 State Report Card - The Castle Coalition

More documents

Recommendations

Info

50statereport cardCastle CoalitionLEGISLATION REPORT CARDState:Missouri• Prohibiting takings “solely” for onomic development andfailing to reform groly abused blight statut means propertyrights remain at risk.• Only agricultural land is exempted from “blight”condemnations.Inc.Particularly after the Supreme Court’sdecision in Kelo, Missouri is a state sorely inneed of eminent domain reform. For yearsredevelopment agencies throughout the statehave used bogus blight designations to acquireprivate property for private development. TheGeneral Assembly had the opportunity todramatically improve its eminent domain laws,but let its citizens down by failing to adopt real,substantial reforms.The state government did adopt HouseBill 1944 (2006), which changes the law inseveral ways. The new law does specify thatproperty cannot be condemned “solely” foreconomic development and it ends the priorpractice of letting private developers initiatecondemnations on their own behalf, but itcontinues to allow government agencies to takeprivate property for the use of other privateparties for any other justification, no matter howsmall or irrelevant. Conveniently for tax-hungrylocal governments and land-hungry developers,the law continues to let cities condemn wholeneighborhoods as “blighted” based on vague,subjective factors such as “inadequate streetlayout,” “unsafe conditions,” and “obsoleteplatting.” While it is a marginal improvementthat such blight designations must now occuron a property-by-property basis—at least until apreponderance of the properties are blighted—the operational definition is so broad that anycommunity could be at risk, no matter how wellmaintained. The new law says that blightedareas must be condemned within five years oftheir designations or else a new designationwill be required, and farm land is specificallyexempted from being declared blighted. HB1944 also establishes an Office of Ombudsmanin the Office of Public Counsel within theDepartment of Economic Development, whichwill ostensibly serve to assist property ownersthat are under threat of eminent domain.When all of these minor changes are takeninto account, however, the end result is notmuch different from the starting point. Almostevery home, business, and house of worship inMissouri may still be taken by any municipalityor government agency with a little patience,ingenuity, and a wealthy developer to providethe financial incentive. Citizens will onlyhave meaningful protection against eminentdomain abuse when blight can only be usedto describe property that is an actual dangerto public health or safety, and that means thestate needs to amend the state constitution toremove Art. VI, Sec. 21, which currently allowscondemnation of blighted areas.House Bill 1944Sponsored by: State Representative Steve HobbsStatus: Signed into law on July 13, 2006.29
50statereport cardCastle CoalitionLEGISLATION REPORT CARDState:Montana• Broad public use language was addred but not sufficientlynarrowed.• Ambiguous definitions of blight mean that loophole remainsopen.Inc.The Montana Legislature was not in sessionin 2006, but citizens hoped to place a propertyrights initiative on the November 2006 ballot.However, Initiative 152 was challenged in courtover issues regarding signature gathering andsubsequently was struck from the ballot.In 2007, the Legislature passed SenateBills 41 and 363. These companion bills openup the two precise sections of code needingreform—the definitions of public use and blight.Unfortunately, the reform that passed barelyincreases property rights protections.The Montana Code, like the statutes ofalmost every state prior to Kelo, provides aback door for municipalities to acquire privateproperty through bogus blight designations.Unfortunately, SB 41 only rearranges a fewwords in the laundry list of vague criterianecessary to declare an area blighted. Thebill was originally intended to prohibit thegovernment from serving as a “pass through”(doing the dirty work of condemning propertyfor private developers) with a strong provisionprohibiting the transfer of condemned propertyto a private entity for ten years. Instead, the billwas amended to remove the time limit and add“intent” language, making it an easy provision towork around.SB 363 addresses public use but fails toremove old, problematic definitions such as“and all other public uses authorized by thelegislature of the state.” The bill also attemptsto limit the blight loophole by reducing thecriteria that qualify an area as blighted, but“deterioration” and “age obsolescence” remainon the list.Other language in the bill purports to stopthe use of eminent domain when its “purpose”is increased tax revenue. Like the “intent”language of SB 41, this provision will be easy toget around since local governments can alwaysclaim a different reason for acquiring property,and courts will not question that assertion.These bills represent a first step towardeminent domain reform, but the state has morework to do to ensure that every Montanan isprotected against the abuse of eminent domain.Senate Bill 41Sponsored by: State Senator Jim ElliotStatus: Signed into law on May 8, 2007.Senate Bill 363Sponsored by: State Senator Christine KaufmanStatus: Signed into law on May 16, 2007.30
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?