ED In Wisconsin
They may not have CCW yet, but they do have a bill aimed at curbing eminent domain abuse:
Wisconsin governments can’t seize private property that isn’t blighted and hand it over to companies for redevelopment under a bill Gov. Jim Doyle signed into law Thursday.
The Republican-authored measure comes in response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision last June that held eminent domain laws allow the federal government to seize property for economic development.
The court ruled that cities may raze people’s homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development. The 5-4 decision gave local governments the power to seize private property in the name of increased tax revenue.
The Wisconsin bill prohibits governments – ranging from counties to state agencies to the University of Wisconsin System – from condemning property that isn’t blighted if the governments plan to convey or lease the property to a private entity.
Property can’t be considered blighted unless it has been abandoned or converted from a single dwelling into multiple units and the crime rate in or around the property is three times higher than in the rest of the city, according to the bill.
Good.
March 31st, 2006 at 1:21 pm
a U.S. Supreme Court decision last June that held eminent domain laws allow the federal government to seize property for economic development.
Huh? Which ruling was this? Kelo involved a local government, not the federal government. And if I’m not mistaken, it didn’t hold that “property [can be seized] for economic development.” It ruled that the matter of what constitutes “public use” is for the legislatures, rather than the courts, to decide. In other words, what constitutes “public use” is for the accountable-to-the-voters legislature to define, not the unaccountable-to-the-people judiciary.
March 31st, 2006 at 1:22 pm
By the way: Wisconsin has erectile dysfunction?
March 31st, 2006 at 1:32 pm
It’s interesting to see that they actually define “blighted”.
The “converted from single () to multiple” is also telling.
Do you think they have a problem with people putting multiple families in a single house?
March 31st, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Irrelevant. The precedent holds equally for state, local and federal goverment alike.
True, but in so doing, it effectively nullfied public use as a requirement. Would you be equally sanguine if the court had ruled that the Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable” searches and seizures, but they’ll defer to local governments to decide which searches and/or seizures are or are not “reasonable?”
March 31st, 2006 at 5:22 pm
X:
I never said that I liked Kelo, or that I agreed with it. I just pointed out that the characterization of the story was less than accurate. Had this been a gun ban rather than an ED ban, Uncle would have torn that sort of “sloppy” characterization a new asshole and picked innumerable nits. But because he agrees with this ban (and because he doesn’t like the ruling in questions), he lets the lack of precision slide in this case.
Also, notice that contrary to your assertion that this effectively nullifies the public use requirement, the legislature took action to reinforce it.
Also notice that nothing in the fifth amendment requires public use for property to be taken. It merely states that if property is taken for public use, fair compensation must be given. It doesn’t prohibit any other kind of taking, and makes no stipulation about such takings. I thought it was the liberals who made up constitutional clauses. I guess it’s “strict construction except where inconvenient.” 😉
March 31st, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Jon:
I don’t think the single-to-multiple thing is all that surprising. The idea is to protect homeowners from losing their homes to such plans. If you’ve taken a single-family dwelling and converted it into a “multiple unit” dwelling, you’re now a landlord, and fair or not, like it or not, a different standard applies (at least in the court of public opinion). The wording is probably meant to allow the state to continue to use ED as a weapon against slum lords; without it, it would be much more difficult.
March 31st, 2006 at 5:37 pm
The court effectively nullified the public use requirement under the Fifth Amendment. That some legislatures have (while others haven’t) chosen to create or beef up separate public use requirirements of their own is neither here nor there. Abolishing the Fourth Amendment by judicial fiat wouldn’t require cops to search people or seize their property unreasonably, either; it would merely leave it up to the authorities to comply with the now-dead Amendment voluntarily, if they want to. Would that be good enough?
Note that in your Second Amendment counter-example, the federal/state distinction might actually matter, since no court to date has incorporated the Second Amendment. Not so for the takings clause of the Fifth.
March 31st, 2006 at 5:47 pm
Again, I’m not saying I think it’s a good ruling. I’m simply pointing out that I think it’s an unfair characterization of the ruling. You can argue “in effect, close enough,” but you could argue the same thing for any number of nits that Uncle picks on stories he disagrees with concerning his hot-button issues.
March 31st, 2006 at 7:01 pm
I say “close enough” if they reach the same result in all cases. My reading of Kelo leaves no room for anything else. I can’t think of any conceivable taking that would be upheld if the Court had explicitly nullified the “public use” requirement, but which will not be upheld under Kelo’s “yes, it has to be a ‘public use,’ but we’ll let you decide what that means” non-standard. Can you?
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:00 pm
How about a dispute between different levels of government?