"Where Fillmore County News Comes First"
Tuesday, February 9th, 2016
Volume ∞ Issue ∞
- 2:15:57, Feb 8th 2016 - Hawkeye63 - . SV 85, all your insults are for nothing. My skin is too thick to worry a ... [Read More]
- 7:28:40, Feb 8th 2016 - - In response to the free lifejackets. That would mean you are offering a way out for ... [Read More]
- 5:30:25, Feb 8th 2016 - wow - About time u r thinking of a parking lot! and another thing. U CAN'T reserve par ... [Read More]
- 12:45:22, Feb 8th 2016 - - In response to the free lifejackets. That would mean you are offering a way out fo ... [Read More]
- 12:37:07, Feb 8th 2016 - understanding - It is easy for someone to say yes! Especially when they are on the re ... [Read More]
- 7:41:46, Feb 7th 2016 - DeerHunterguy - @Terbeest Calling someone who supports Obama like "a follower of Nazi ... [Read More]
- 6:58:19, Feb 7th 2016 - VikeFan1 - Another angry, rambling rant from a bitter right wingnut. Who is this guy? ... [Read More]
- 12:35:24, Feb 7th 2016 - Slate7 - Looks like the flood destroyed Rushford after all. What happened to the stro ... [Read More]
- 5:15:31, Feb 6th 2016 - @respect - "They don't go out of their way to disrespect until disrespect is thrown at ... [Read More]
- 3:28:56, Feb 6th 2016 - Farmer - WOW! Hope you have more life jackets because now that you have actually put y ... [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 courtís 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 Minnesotaís 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 Cattlemenís 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 cityís 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 nationís 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 nationís 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.