"Where Fillmore County News Comes First"
Thursday, December 8th, 2016
Volume ∞ Issue ∞
- 8:36:23, Dec 7th 2016 - doc - I'm going to give all of the senile citizens who voted him in the big HOO HA whe ... [Read More]
- 8:32:10, Dec 7th 2016 - doc - Now the republican congress is threatening to shut down the government if Drumpf ... [Read More]
- 8:08:11, Dec 7th 2016 - Hawkeye63 - @ Thomas, if I misread your politics, I apologize. I promise to watch furt ... [Read More]
- 7:54:51, Dec 7th 2016 - Hawkeye63 - @ SV85, now there's the Left Wing Zealot we have come to know and love. Aw ... [Read More]
- 5:51:23, Dec 7th 2016 - doc - Republicans don't believe in facts. ... [Read More]
- 5:49:27, Dec 7th 2016 - livin' the dream - Tweakers are the lowest form of life. ... [Read More]
- 3:18:08, Dec 6th 2016 - Thomas E. H. - Hawkeye63 I do find it interesting that, although all I've done is a ... [Read More]
- 1:05:28, Dec 6th 2016 - SV85 - Hawkeye63 So nearly 3 million more votes for Clinton than Trump means nothing ... [Read More]
- 11:04:07, Dec 6th 2016 - Hawkeye63 - @ Thomas, you did get an answer from the American people in a very substa ... [Read More]
- 4:13:12, Dec 5th 2016 - Thomas E. H. - Hawkeye63, There was no response to my question when people voted. M ... [Read More]
Fri, Jan 27th, 2006
Posted in Commentary
Posted in Commentary
Eminent domain has risen to the top of hot political issues being discussed since the Kelo vs. New London decision in 2005. There is much confusion surrounding this issue, and I would like to try to clear the air.
The Kelo vs. New London decision was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court last summer. While the Supreme Court upheld the ability of local government to take property for private economic development purposes, the majority opinion also stated that there is nothing in the court’s decision to prevent states from placing further restrictions on eminent domain uses. Several bills were introduced by Minnesota legislators, who were meeting in special session when the Kelo vs. New London decision was announced. My name was on the two bipartisan bills that were introduced as a response to Kelo vs. New London. The need to reform Minnesota’s eminent domain laws is not a partisan issue. Neither liberals nor conservatives nor anyone in between have a corner on this issue. On January 5, a press conference was held at the capital to outline the major elements of a bill that would reform our eminent domain laws. Chief authors Rep. Jeff Johnson (R-Plymouth) and Sen. Tom Bakk (DFL-Cook) stated that while a few people might think the legislation goes too far, some others may believe that it does not go far enough. The three key provisions of their proposal include: 1) a prohibition of government entities from forcing the transfer of private property to other private entities; 2) a requirement to compensate for the value of a business as well as the value of the property when taking business property for legitimate public purposes; and 3) a provision for reimbursement of attorney fees if a taking is successfully challenged. A broad spectrum of groups was present at the January 5 press conference to support this proposed legislation. A sample representation of supporters include the Farmers Union, Farm Bureau, NAACP, National Federation of Independent Business, Minnesota Petroleum Marketers Association, Minnesota Automobile Dealers Association, the Minnesota Cattlemen’s Association and former Independence Party gubernatorial candidate Tim Penny. However, no one drove the point home at the January 5 press conference better than Jim and Beverly Meide, a couple from Champlin who live in their dream home and simply want to live out their lives in that house. The Meides are worried about the prospect of their home being taken by the city - not for a school or road construction or a public facilities project - but for condominiums and a marina along the city’s riverfront. Anyone who says that eminent domain laws are not abused in Minnesota needs to think back no longer than a decade, when the City of Richfield condemned homes and small businesses to make way for the Best Buy Headquarters. I believe our nation’s founders would turn over in their graves if they knew that the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment was abused to this extent. No amount of new tax revenue for a local government is worth disrupting the lives of private homeowners and small business owners. I introduced legislation to address this issue in the special session last year, and will introduce similar legislation in the 2006 legislative session. However, I will support any bill that protects the private property rights of individual homeowners and small business people against an overzealous government chomping at the bit to close a deal on that next big development. Private property rights have been a crucial element of our individual freedom since our nation’s founders wrote the constitution and bill of rights. There is nothing partisan about private property rights and I gladly promote and defend them. Greg Davids of Preston is a member of the Minnesota House of Representatives from District 31B.