Mass. proposal would make it harder to seize homes

WHDH 7 News: A group of Massachusetts lawmakers are looking to toughen protections for homeowners four years after the nation's highest court ruled cities may bulldoze people's houses to make way for shopping malls. The Republican-led initiative would add Massachusetts to a long list of states to limit the taking of private property by eminent domain for commercial development since the contentious 2005 Supreme Court decision. That case involved efforts by the city of New London, Conn., to revitalize its downtown by constructing a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. The project required the city to seize homes in a working class neighborhood to clear land. Susette Kelo and other homeowners refused, even after the city offered compensation, arguing it was an unjustified taking of their property. A divided Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city, saying their attempts to seize the homes were constitutional under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property for public use. But critics, including then-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, said the decision handed too much power to the wealthy and politically connected. After the ruling, states across the country raced to toughen their eminent domain laws to protect property owners. More than 40 states have limited the circumstances under which property can be seized, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Last year, voters in California approved a measure prohibiting the use of eminent domain "to acquire an owner-occupied residence to convey it to a private entity."

In April, Delaware passed a law barring governments or other agencies from taking property solely for economic development. Now, some in Massachusetts are saying it's time to ensure municipal and state agencies here are also barred from taking private property from one owner to give to another. "It's un-American," said Rep. Lewis Evangelidis, R-Holden, an amendment sponsor. "To simply take property and hand it over to a private enterprise -- I don't think that's what a civil society should do to its citizens." The amendment would allow a government entity to take private property "only when necessary for the possession, occupation, and enjoyment of land by the public at large, or by public agencies." The amendment would bar private property from being taken "for private commercial enterprise, for economic development, or for any other private use" even "on the grounds that the public will benefit from a more profitable private use." It also leaves it up to the courts, and not the Legislature, to have the final say on what constitutes a "public use."

To read more, click here.

Comments

There are no comments for this entry.

More News