Last The biggest debate in the Iowa House last week was on the issue of eminent domain. House File 2351 was passed out of the Judiciary Committee and then debated on Wednesday, February 15. I voted in favor of the bill, and it passed by a wide margin, 83 – 15. It now moves to the Iowa Senate where it will almost certainly undergo some modifications.

The discussion of eminent domain in the legislative process is so complicated that it is not unlike being in a College of Law class. Eminent domain is the physical taking of private property by government for a “public use.” The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows this to happen so long as just compensation is paid to the property owner. State constitutions mirror this authority. Eminent domain traditionally has been used for government buildings, roads, utilities, reservoirs, and facilities to which the public has direct access and from which it benefits.

A U.S. Supreme Court decision (Kelo vs. New London) on June 23, 2005, generated much concern and activity in many state legislatures, including Iowa. The case involved an economic development plan for New London, Connecticut, which had been in economic decline for decades. The New London Development Corporation used eminent domain to take private property as part of a waterfront economic revival effort.

The plan condemned property in a neighborhood that had many old buildings in poor shape but also included some houses that were still inhabitable. Included in this action was a home owned by Susette Kelo, who wanted to keep her property on the waterfront. She appealed the decision all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which affirmed, by a 5 to 4 decision, that the Fifth Amendment permits the condemning of private property for economic development as long as it provides a public benefit.

The core argument is this: private property advocates contend that the decision means “no house is safe,” while local government officials argue that eminent domain is a necessary tool to revitalize rundown areas.

The bill makes it a little harder to condemn private property. Under this legislation, a governmental body exercising condemnation authority through eminent domain could be forced, if challenged in court, to prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that the condemnation action complies with the law. If challenged under current law, the reverse is true—it is up to the private landowner to show why the condemnation should NOT take place.

HF 2351 allows condemnation of property for a public or governmental use, for a private utility, for environmental remediation, or for urban renewal in some cases. However, the bill restricts eminent domain for economic development projects aimed solely at increasing tax revenue or employment, or for the purpose of giving the condemned private property over to other private developers or businesses for residential, commercial or industrial development.

Under this legislation, condemnations for landfills, lake projects, sewer treatment facilities and recreation projects are restricted. Also, if an owner’s property is purchased through condemnation and the person is hit with capital gains taxes or is relocated to an area with higher property taxes, this legislation includes provision to lessen any additional tax burden caused by the condemnation.

Based on the concerns expressed by my constituents, I supported the bill in Judiciary Committee and on final passage in the Iowa House. House District 29 has four areas that could be impacted by eminent domain: proposed landfills near Ely and Viola; the road through northern Johnson County (Newport Township); and a proposed composting facility near Swisher. I believe that my constituents in those four areas could benefit from the protection provided by HF 2351.

I appreciate hearing from you. You can write me at the State Capitol, Des Moines, IA 50319; call me at 515/281-7328 or e-mail me at ro.foege@legis.state.ia.us.

Ro

Another Internet Presence Provided by Kelly Webworks.