Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005
PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - November 03, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 6 OFFERED BY MR. TURNER
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London went too far in allowing the taking of private property for private development. Congress must take action to protect property rights of individuals. However, we must be careful not to prohibit traditional pre-Kelo justifications for eminent domain.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment enumerates harmful effects which constitute a threat to public health and safety. These harmful effects are traditional justifications for cities, municipalities and other governmental entities to acquire property to protect public health and safety. In fact, the list of harmful effects in my amendment includes elements from several State laws.
The amendment is derived from the State definitions from Wisconsin, the home of Chairman Sensenbrenner; Texas, the home of our President; Illinois, the home of our Speaker; Missouri, the home of Majority Leader Blunt; and Virginia, the home of Chairman Goodlatte.
I have also included an exception for brownfields in my amendment. Brownfields, which are contaminated properties, are a dangerous problem for cities and must be redeveloped to protect the current residents of these communities and also bring people back into our cities.
This amendment, in order to protect public health and safety, has been endorsed by the National Association of Home Builders, the International Council of Shopping Centers, the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties, the International Economic Development Council, the Building Owners and Management Association International, the Real Estate Roundtable, the American Institute of Architects, the American Planning Association, the National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals, the United States Conference of Mayors, the International City County Management Association, and the National League of Cities.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is necessary. Without this amendment, our States will lose their pre-Kelo authority.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, wow, light bulbs burnt out, paint peeling, those are scary things that the chairman has said would be used for eminent domain. But not in America. That is not what the eminent domain pre-Kelo has been in America.
The 49 States who have definitions of harmful effects that are in this amendment are from States that have litigated over this issue and that have taken into consideration the issue of property rights, the issue of the property rights of individuals that live next to abandoned factories, the people who have children that are in neighborhoods that have property that is near them that has an impact on the public health and safety. The ability for them to enjoy their property and to enjoy it where they are living next to public health and safety threats are what the amendment would rise to.
It does not permit anybody to take any property because a light bulb is burned out. In fact, again it is based on 49 States and the exact language that is used by them in defining harmful effects. The chairman's own State's language includes, from Wisconsin, dilapidation, obsolescence, sanitation, light, air. These are not terms of burned-out light bulbs. These are issues where they rise to the level of a safety and health threat to the individuals of the communities, of the people whose properties are next to them. It is not Kelo.
We all believe that Kelo has gone too far and that an individual's property rights of his home should be protected. But similarly, the home that stands next to a property that is abandoned and is a health threat or the property that is next to a factory for which there are health and safety issues for a community needs to be addressed. Forty-nine States have passed legislation permitting eminent domain in public safety and health threats. Certainly we should acknowledge this and not take away from these communities the pre-Kelo rights of eminent domain.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, in communities all across this country, there are buildings that represent a public health and safety threat to a community. Many times people drive by those buildings and they say to their elected officials, someone ought to do something about that. It is not a Kelo decision of saying we ought to have something better. It is saying that there is something damaging to our community and damaging to our neighborhoods.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov