Apparently, the feds are doing something useful for once.  The House voted to approve legislation that would limit economic growth funding to cities and states that use eminent domain to seize private property for commercial (non-public) uses.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051103/ap_on_go_co/seizing_property


Quote:

Contending that the Supreme Court has undermined a pillar of American society, the sanctity of the home, the House overwhelmingly approved a bill Thursday to block the court-approved seizure of private property for use by developers. The bill, passed 376-38, would withhold federal money from state and local governments that use powers of eminent domain to force businesses and homeowners to give up their property for commercial uses. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling in June, recognized the power of local governments to seize property needed for private development projects that generate tax revenue. The decision drew criticism from private property, civil rights, farm and religious groups that said it was an abuse of the Fifth Amendment's "takings clause." That language provides for the taking of private property, with fair compensation, for public use. The court's June decision, said House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., changed established constitutional principles by holding that "any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party." The ruling in Kelo v. City of New London allowed the Connecticut city to exercise state eminent domain law to require several homeowners to cede their property for commercial use. With this "infamous" decision, said Rep. Phil Gingrey (news, bio, voting record), R-Ga., "homes and small businesses across the country have been placed in grave jeopardy and threatened by the government wrecking ball." The bill, said Chip Mellor, president of the Institute for Justice, which represented the Kelo homeowners before the Supreme Court, "highlights the fact that this nation's eminent domain and urban renewal laws need serious and substantial changes." But opponents argued that the federal government should not be interceding in what should be a local issue. "We should not change federal law every time members of Congress disagree with the judgment of a locality when it uses eminent domain for the purpose of economic development," said Rep. Bobby Scott (news, bio, voting record), D-Va. The legislation is the latest, and most far-reaching, of several congressional responses to the court ruling. The House previously passed a measure to bar federal transportation money from going for improvements on land seized for private development. The Senate approved an amendment to a transportation spending bill applying similar restrictions. The bill now moves to the Senate, where Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, has introduced companion legislation. About half the states are also considering changes in their laws to prevent takings for private use. The Bush administration, backing the House bill, said in a statement that "private property rights are the bedrock of the nation's economy and enjoy constitutionally protected status. They should also receive an appropriate level of protection by the federal government." The House bill would cut off for two years all federal economic development funds to states and localities that use economic development as a rationale for property seizures. It also would bar the federal government from using eminent domain powers for economic development. "By subjecting all projects to penalties, we are removing a loophole that localities can exploit by playing a 'shell game' with projects," said Rep. Henry Bonilla (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, a chief sponsor. The House, by a voice vote, approved Gingrey's proposal to bar states or localities in pursuit of more tax money from exercising eminent domain over nonprofit or tax-exempt religious organizations. Churches, he said, "should not have to fear because God does not pay enough in taxes." Eminent domain, the right of government to take property for public use, is typically used for projects that benefit an entire community, such as highways, airports or schools. Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion in Kelo, said in an August speech that while he had concerns about the results, the ruling was legally correct because the high court has "always allowed local policy-makers wide latitude in determining how best to achieve legitimate public goals." Several lawmakers who opposed the House bill said eminent domain has long been used by local governments for economic development projects such as the Inner Harbor in Baltimore and the cleaning up of Times Square in New York. The District of Columbia is expected to use eminent domain to secure land for a new baseball stadium for the Washington Nationals.

In case you're wondering what idiots voted against this bill, here they are.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll568.xml

Democrats
Ackerman
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Capuano
Case
Cleaver
DeGette
Dingell
Emanuel
Fattah
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Larson (CT)
Levin (Carl Levin can blow me.  Fightin' for the little guy?  Yeah right.)
Lowey
McDermott
Meeks (NY)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Olver
Pastor
Pelosi (Another gun-grabbing idiot.)
Rothman
Sabo
Schakowsky
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Stark
Visclosky
Watt
Waxman
Woolsey
Wynn

Republicans
Boehlert
Turner

-b0b
(...thinks it's about time.)

Mr. Levin will receive a very strong worded email from me today...you better believe it!

X

I'm sure he's shaking in his boots.

-b0b
(...snickers.)

Actually upon inspection.  I believe we are mistaken that it's Carl Levin since he's a senator and this is from the House of Represenatives, I noticed that Stabenow wasn't on the list and also that the list contains more than 100 people.

X
(Am I wrong?)

Yeah, you've got a point there.  It can't be Levin.

Maybe they're related.  Stupidity is hereditary, after all.

-b0b
(...hates it when logic interrupts a perfectly good rant.)

I see our represenative the Honorable Fred Upton, who I personally like and respect, is absent from the vote.  Usually he makes all of them.  Unless my search is flawed.

X

Wow never mind that post...couldn't spell.  He's still a good guy.  Voted Yea.

X

Upton is a good guy.  I'm glad to see he voted in an intelligent manner.

-b0b
(...is eating chicken.)

This is a letter that I just send Upton

Dear Mr. Upton,

I have recently been advised and was proud to see that you voted Yea on HR 4128, on the passage of Private Property Rights Protection Act.  It gives me great honor to know and have voted for a man who still recognizes the fundamental right of private property without interference with the State.  I was dismayed this year to find that our Supreme Court had ruled in favor of eminent domain.  I was appalled at the behavior that our federal system took towards this issue.  However I was surprised to see that our own federal system voted to help thwart this insideious ruling.  However, even though you have taken steps in securing the property rights of many Americans, I still feel as if the battle has just begun.  I believe, however, if people, like yourself and others I know, take up the sword of truth and justice in our state and local governments we will prevail.  Although I am still only a college student at WMU, I have taken it upon myself to fight for the freedom of all Americans and ensure that the people of this great Republic may hold onto the liberty and justice that is their right.  By writing you, I am helping in fulfilling this obligation.  I pray that others may take up the charge.  With people like you and those like Senator Ron Paul, who view the freedoms we have as sacred I believe we can stand up against any tyrrony that may transpior.  I have writen to you before, sometimes in agreement and in other times not, even so you should expect to hear from me again.  I stand by your side in your rulling on this issue and ask that you remember what our Founding Fathers did for us and help protect that republic system which they set up for us and for future generations to come.

With humble respect,
Patrick J. <redacted>