Eminent Domain Abuse

EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE -- (House of Representatives - June 27, 2005)

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuhl of New York). Under a previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to be on the floor this evening speaking about this particular issue. As a matter of fact, I was hoping over the next few days I could concentrate all of my time on the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus that we are working so hard on.

But this is National Homeowner Month, and I could not help but focus on the fact that in America owning your own home is one of the most ideal things that you can do. Americans aspire to own their own homes. We socialize in such a way that we teach our children to go to school, to get an education, to get a good job or have a good career, become an entrepreneur, and buy your home.

And so as I focus on National Homeowner Month, I am outraged that the Supreme Court of the United States of America last Thursday made a decision that local entities could take American's homes in eminent domain proceedings for something other than public use. I am amazed that the Supreme Court of the United States on a 5-to-4 decision, I believe it was, decided that the law, the Constitution as we know it, I think it is the fifth amendment, that says yes, you may use eminent domain for good public use, is something other than what was intended. This ruling says you can take anybody's home for private use. In this case Susette Kelo, the woman from New London, Connecticut, who brought the case, was trying to protect her home from the desire by a huge corporation to build some condominiums.

And so now with this Supreme Court decision, the State, the city, the public entity, can take your home for private use. They can take your home and they can give it to private developers to build shopping centers. They can take your home and give it to developers to build a condominium. They can take your home for any reason that they decide is in the public interest, and they are trying to hide behind the idea that there are some cities and some entities that need to get rid of slums and they need to redevelop in the best interest of the citizens of that community.

Yes, it may go to a private company or to a private corporation and yes, they may get rich from that development. But if the city fathers get together and believe that that somehow is in the best interest and it is already all right, that flies in the face of the Constitution of the United States.

I do not think Members have to be a strict constructionist or a liberal constructionist. All you need is good sense to know that the Constitution of the United States did not mean for your city government or any other entity to be able to ride over your rights and take your private property and give it to somebody else.

As a matter of fact, I think this is dangerous. I think it is dangerous because your city fathers could get together with developers and take land in ways it has never been done before. We know too many stories about the influence of developers on county council members and on city governments. We know too much about the flow of money. We know too much about campaign contributions to those who would just as soon institute eminent domain as do anything.

As a matter of fact, without this interpretation that we got last Thursday, we have city fathers who have tried it, even though they did not have this ruling. You have communities that have to fight against city council members and mayors getting together trying to take their property and at least trying to call it for public use.

But now the Supreme Court has made it clear that they can take it for private use. I do not like it. Members do not have to be a Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. Members just need to be an American with good sense that says you will not stand for it.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to get together with some of my friends on the other side of the aisle and we are going to create a law that will undermine this decision of the Supreme Court and take back amendment 5 of the Constitution so we can redefine the meaning in the way it is supposed to be defined.

http://thomas.loc.gov