Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today sharing the concerns of my colleagues about the dangerous expansion of the eminent domain power and the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London. I firmly believe there need to be safeguards against the excessive and unfair use of the government's eminent domain power. Governors and State legislators across the country, including those in my home State of Connecticut, are currently grappling with this important issue. As a former State legislator, I understand that these issues are best reviewed and addressed at the local level. The Federal approach is overly broad and although well intentioned, falls short of protecting the communities it purports to protect.

Let me make my position clear, private property is one of the most fundamental rights our founding fathers safeguarded in the Constitution. Property rights deserve the utmost protection from governmental intrusion. As a lifelong resident of Connecticut, I am saddened by the Supreme Court's decision in the Kelo case and like many in Connecticut and across the country, feel vulnerable to the potential abuse of eminent domain authority. However, I do not feel this bill brings justice to communities or comprehensively secures property rights from the misuse of the local and State government taking authority.

By attempting to narrow the scope of eminent domain through broad and vague terms, Congress is assuming to identify what does and does not constitute a local public need--a job historically left to our towns, cities and States. These local municipalities would risk losing much-needed economic development funds should they exercise eminent domain authority that goes outside the ambiguous Federal standard set in this bill. Unfortunately, the people most affected by this punitive measure are not the local and city governments making the decisions or the ones at the bargaining table, it is individuals and families living in communities throughout the city, in neighborhoods that depend on federally funded economic development projects for decent housing and livable communities. These are the ones who will truly be penalized by this bill.

Eminent domain is a careful balance of protecting private rights and local public needs. This bill is not yet there. Because of the work still ahead of us, I am voting against this legislation today in the hope that these issues will continue to be addressed during conference with the Senate and that it will work to clarify these remaining questions.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov