Blog Archives

Protect Property Rights: Contact Your State Senator Today

Eminent Domain is quite the topic during this General Assembly session in Richmond. While visiting the Capitol yesterday for Blogger’s Day (which I will have a post on later this evening), I was approached by a fellow blogger about bringing some exposure to a piece of legislation currently being debated on in the State Senate regarding property rights. HJ 693 was introduced by Del. Johnny Joannou (D-Portsmouth) as a Constitutional amendment, which would protect private land from being seized for public development.

Revises the prohibition on the enactment by the General Assembly of laws whereby private property may be taken or damaged. An existing provision authorizing the General Assembly to define what constitutes a public use is removed. The proposed amendment states that (i) no private property shall be damaged or taken except for public use without just compensation to its owner for the property taken and for damages to the residue caused by the taking or damaging and (ii) that no more private property may be taken than that which is necessary to achieve the stated public use. Just compensation shall be no less than the value of the property taken and the damages to the residue caused by the taking. A public service company, public service corporation, or railroad exercises the power of eminent domain for public use when such exercise is for the authorized provision of utility, common carrier, or railroad services. In all other cases, a taking or damaging of private property is not for public use if the primary use is for private gain, private benefit, private enterprise, increasing jobs, increasing tax revenue, or economic development, except for the elimination of a public nuisance existing on the property. The condemnor bears the burden of proving that the use is public, without a presumption that it is.

In order to protect property rights, it is imperative that you contact your state senator today.

Government, Inc. Leads to Red Ink for Our Nation’s Small Businesses

Guest Post by Congressman Bob Goodlatte

Four years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in the now-notorious case of Kelo v. City of New London, which authorized the government to take private property from individuals for nearly any reason under the guise of eminent domain, even to give to other private individuals or entities.  The public outcry over this decision was so great that it forced states to enact laws to significantly rein in their own eminent domain powers.

Unfortunately, House Democrats did not learn the lessons of the Kelo decision.  A few weeks ago, they passed H.R. 4173, the so-called “Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.”  This bill would allow a team of federal bureaucrats to decide that a private business poses a risk to the economy.  Incredibly, the bill then allows the federal government to take over that private business and even gives the government the right to sell off the business’ assets.  What’s worse, to pay for these takeovers, the bill sets up a permanent $150 billion slush fund.

While the alleged purpose of this bill is to prevent a concentration of money and power in a small number of large corporations, the bill would have the opposite effect.  Knowing that the federal government will swoop in and take over any companies that it deems “too big to fail,” creditors and investors will be drawn to lend money to the largest corporations because of the implied guarantee that the federal government will step in to repay these loans.  The flow of capital will thus go to the largest corporations rather than where the money is really needed – small businesses and entrepreneurs, which are the true innovators and job creators of the U.S. economy.

The bill also creates a separate, new bureaucratic agency and bestows upon it broad authority to impose burdensome regulations on any business that lends money, extends credit or enters into repayment plans with consumers.  These regulations would hit everyone from doctors and hospitals to furniture and department stores.

It is efforts like H.R. 4173 that prompted Ronald Reagan to warn us against those who would have us believe that a small intellectual elite can manage the people better than the people can manage themselves.

For all of these reasons I have cosponsored H.J.Res. 57, a Constitutional amendment prohibiting the United States government from owning or having any interest in any private company or corporation.  This bill will prevent future taxpayer-funded bailouts of private corporations and help get government out of the way so that small businesses and entrepreneurs can access capital to innovate and create the jobs that are so desperately needed today.

In this case, as in so many others, government is not the answer, government is the problem.  To contact me about this or any other matter, please visit my website at www.goodlatte.house.gov.

Obama's Use and Abuse of Property Rights

In case you were curious, property rights are under assault by the Obama Administration.  Read Michael Barone’s article in The Washington Examiner.

Barone mentions that the United Auto Workers are receiving kickbacks for their support of President Obama’s campaign last year.  One of those kickbacks is that the UAW could own 55% of Chrysler and 43% of General Motors (GM).

The White House, presumably car czar Steven Rattner and deputy Ron Bloom, is seeking to transfer the property of one group of people to another group that is politically favored. In the process, it is setting aside basic property rights in favor of rewarding the United Auto Workers for the support the union has given the Democratic Party. The only possible limit on the White House’s power is the bankruptcy judge, who might not go along.

So…what’s going to happen to GM?  After all, GM’s bondholders are watching this situation closely, since Chrysler’s bondholders are suing for their fair share of the money.  Will they also have to sue to attempt to preserve their property rights?  Either way, it looks like Obama has drop kicked property rights to the curb.

Property Rights in Virginia

With the recent property rights battles occurring in the General Assembly this session with SJ 290, maybe, it is good to listen to Suzette Kelo’s story about how she fought to keep her beautiful house in New London, Connecticut. She fought on behalf of her right to property that she took her case to the Supreme Court and won in Kelo v. New London.

Here is the video (H/T to Cato @ Liberty):

Call your State Senators today and urge them to support the Constitutional Amendment to uphold your Property Rights in Virginia.

**Cross Posted at Virginia News Platoon

Property Rights in Virginia

Tertium Quids posted an excellent write up about today’s subcommittee hearing on property rights in the State Senate. Sen. Mark Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg) has proposed legislation that would create a constitutional amendment, which would establish limitations on seizing private property. S.J. 290 would also include provisions that would prevent property from being seized if it is for financial gain, etc.

There was a similar bill that was sponsored by Sen. Ken Cuccinelli (R-Fairfax) and passed during last year’s General Assembly session. If the proposed legislation is killed, this could threaten future property rights legislation. Remember we have the right to life, liberty and property (without the threats of seizing land for future business and housing developments). Call your legislators today and urge them to support this legislation.

**Cross Posted at Virginia News Platoon