Eminent-domain limits pass

03/28/2006

House expected to take up similar bill protecting private property

BY BILL SALISBURY
Pioneer Press

The Minnesota Senate on Monday passed a bill that would make it much harder for cities and counties to seize private homes and businesses and transfer them to other private owners for economic development.

The bill limiting the use of eminent domain — the government’s constitutional power to take private property — passed 64-2. The House is expected to vote on its version of the bill next week.

“We’ll get a bill passed and on the governor’s desk before we adjourn,” predicted the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Thomas Bakk, DFL-Cook.

Minnesota is one of more than 40 states seeking to limit local governments’ power to condemn private property after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last summer that New London, Conn., could seize and tear down private homes to make room for a hotel and office park. So far this year, seven states have passed laws restricting the use of eminent domain, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Bakk attributed the lopsided vote for his bill to the public outcry over the New London ruling.

“I think most people were outraged by the Supreme Court decision that government can take your home or your business and give it to another private owner,” he said. “People feel pretty strongly that the Constitution should protect them from that.”

His bill would bar cities and counties from taking private property simply to increase their tax base or create jobs.
Local governments still could condemn property for “public use,” such as roads, parks or school buildings. They also could use eminent domain to redevelop blighted urban and environmentally contaminated areas. But such areas would be much more tightly defined in law.

A blighted area, for instance, would be part of a city where more than half the buildings are “structurally substandard,” a phrase the bill spells out in detail.

Early this year, Minnesota city officials argued there was little need for the legislation because they use eminent domain sparingly. But Bakk said government officials often used the threat of seizing property to force owners to sell.

“A lot of people sell with a gun to their head … the threat of eminent domain,” he said. “My hope is this bill will level the playing field for homeowners or small-business owners with government.”

Some states have prohibited the use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private owner to another.

Bakk’s bill doesn’t go that far. He described it as a compromise that protects private property rights while letting local governments retain the power to redevelop deteriorating neighborhoods.

Many senators wanted even stronger limits. Saying the bill didn’t offer enough protection, Sen. Julianne Ortman, R-Chanhassen, proposed an amendment that would have barred local governments from taking property from an unwilling seller to transfer it to another private entity. Opponents argued that would have made it impossible for cities to redevelop blighted areas. Ortman’s amendment was defeated on a 33-33 vote.