Christian Action League of North Carolina, Inc.

Thursday, the House Judiciary III Committee took up HB 1965 – Eminent Domain Restrictions and passed the measure unanimously. The legislation would restrict the eminent domain powers of state and local governments. The legislation, whose primary sponsor is Rep. Bruce Goforth (D-Asheville) comes at the recommendation of a House Study Committee that concluded North Carolina needed to clarify "the exclusive uses for which the authority to exercise the power of Eminent Domain is granted."

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, "virtually every sate is considering legislation this year" in wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London. "In that case, the court determined in June of 2005 that nine homes belonging to private owners could be taken by the city of New London, Connecticut, in order to develop private office buildings. The seizure was part of a plan by the city to create jobs and increase the city's tax revenues. Up until that time, the Court had previously defined "public use" as "public purpose", but in a 5-4 ruling the Court said in Kelo that private property could be taken and given to another private owner to promote economic development. At the same time, the court acknowledged nothing in its decision precludes a state from placing further restrictions on the use of Eminent Domain.

Rev. Mark Creech, Executive Director of the Christian Action League says Kelo v. City of New England set a fearful precedence that would restrict religious liberty. He notes religious groups were already having problems pre-Kelo. Government officials are often insensitive to churches, passing ordinances that keep them out of certain neighborhoods and restricting their ability to build and grow. But now that Kelo expands the powers of cities and municipalities to garner more tax revenue for "public use," its open season on churches, synagogues, mosques, church soup kitchens and homeless shelters, if local government believes their property would be better used by others for economic development purposes.

Justice Sandra Day O'Conner underlined the danger for all private property owners in her dissent in the Kelo decision, arguing: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."

In an interview with the Christian Action League, Rep.Goforth says his bill is designed to prevent what happened in New London, Connecticut from happening in North Carolina. He said that in the Judiciary III Committee, the discussion was focused on the new Eminent Domain areas that would be controlled and where restrictions would be strengthened.

Goforth noted that another bill on Eminent Domain, HB 2213 – Eminent Domain, one in which he is also a sponsor, would call for a State Constitutional Amendment. HB 2213 says its purpose is "to prohibit condemnation of private property to be owned by other private owners for economic development, and to provide for the prompt payment of just compensation with right of trial by jury in all condemnation cases." Goforth said that bill was scheduled to come before the Judiciary III Committee "in the next week or so." He added his bill (HB 1965) was necessary for passage to protect private property owners until a Constitutional Amendment could be secured. We need something to take effect in July" he said. "That would give us a year until 2007 to do a Constitutional Amendment." A Constitutional Amendment would more permanently safeguard the rights of property owners.

Goforth says he expects some opposition to the bill from the municipalities who are concerned that they be reserved the right by Eminent Domain to remove areas in communities that are community blight. But Goforth insist that blight is protected in the legislation, we just want to make sure it's blight before they can take it, he says.