• Press Release

    Eminent domain amendment should provide real protection

    posted January 26, 2011
    Click here to view and here to listen to Daren Bakst discussing this Spotlight report. RALEIGH — Legislators should provide real property-rights protections as they pursue a constitutional…
  • Research Report

    Seize Property As a Last Resort: Eminent domain bill should protect humans, not just natural habitats

    posted June 14, 2009 by Daren Bakst
    In North Carolina, the government can invoke eminent domain and seize private property even if reasonable alternatives exist to using this power. A recent Senate bill (SB 600) would allow conservation easement holders to challenge takings in court by requiring the government to prove that no prudent and feasible alternatives exist to condemnation of properties encumbered by conservation easements.
  • Research Report

    Eminent Domain in N.C.: The Case for Real Reform

    posted May 2, 2007 by Daren Bakst
    Eminent domain refers to the government’s power to seize private property without the consent of owners. In 2005, the United States Supreme Court, in the now infamous case of Kelo v. City of New London, held that the government could seize private property solely for economic development reasons. This policy report explains why North Carolina Needs a Constitutional Amendment to prevent such takings.
  • Press Release

    Eminent domain amendment still needed

    posted May 2, 2007
    RALEIGH – North Carolina’s constitution has the nation’s weakest property rights protection, even after state lawmakers addressed the topic in 2006. That’s the assessment of a new John Locke Foundation…
  • Research Report

    Property Rights After Kelo: North Carolina Needs a New Constitutional Amendment

    posted October 16, 2005 by Daren Bakst
    The United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Kelo v. City of New London drastically weakened the property rights of all citizens. North Carolinians can protect themselves by amending the state constitution. An amendment is necessary because state legislation does not provide adequate protection of property rights. All fundamental rights, especially property rights, should be protected in the state’s highest law, the state constitution.

takings by Author