Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005

Floor Speech

PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - November 03, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill.

* [Begin Insert]

Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Judiciary Committee I had the opportunity to review quite carefully this bill. While I disagreed with the Supreme Court decision, I must confess that the bill before us today is not drafted as carefully and clearly as I would have hoped. There will, in all likelihood, be litigation if this bill becomes law because the exemptions are written in such a way that reasonable people may disagree as to their meaning.

I hope that I can help clarify the application of this bill in at least one area: The meaning of the bill as it relates to affordable housing.

What follows are the concurring views in the Committee Report accompanying this bill. It is my hope that by including them here today during our floor debate that in the future this clarification will be of value to public entities, litigants and the courts.

At markup, I intended to offer an amendment to this legislation creating an exception to the definition of ``economic development'' for the development of affordable housing for low-income residents. I ultimately decided not to offer this amendment, however, based on my recognition, and the apparent recognition of my colleagues, that this bill as introduced does not in any way limit the ability of States and local governments to exercise their eminent domain powers for the building of affordable housing for low-income residents. In fact, during markup, I pointed this out and received no objections from my colleagues.

The provision of low-income housing, whether by a for-profit or a non-profit entity, should not constitute ``economic development'' under the definition in this bill because such activity constitutes neither ``commercial enterprise'' nor an activity designed to ``increase tax revenue, tax base, employment or general economic health.'' Rather, the development of affordable housing for low-income residents constitutes a traditional public purpose for which eminent domain powers have long been recognized. Given that this bill will not in any way limit the exercise of eminent domain powers for the development of affordable housing, I concur in the Committee's report.

* [End Insert]

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source