As I have argued, the eminent domain amendment (HB 1268) that may be considered in the House next week is a cure worse than the disease.
Here’s the text of the amendment:
“Private property shall not be taken by eminent domain except for a public use. Public use does not include the taking of property in order to convey an interest in the property for economic development. This paragraph does not apply to the taking of physically blighted properties as defined by general law, nor to takings for access to property. Just compensation shall be paid and, if demanded, shall be determined by a jury.”
There are many problems with this amendment. I just want to focus on the “physically blighted” language. The second sentence creates the “prohibition” on economic development takings. The third sentence then creates exceptions to the general prohibition: Economic development takings are allowed if the property is physically blighted or the taking is for access to property.
The problem is that “physically blighted” can mean almost anything–also notice that the legislature will be able to define its meaning–so, for all practical purposes, “physically blighted” will mean whatever the legislature wants it to mean.
This is a case where the exception swallows the rule–the exception of taking property for blight, to a large extent, completely negates the actual prohibition on economic development takings.
BTW: Just an example of the sloppiness of this amendment: Notice how it says “This paragraph shall not apply to the taking of physically blighted properties…” As currently drafted, the just compensation sentence is part of the paragraph–is the amendment saying that just compensation doesn’t need to be awarded when the seized property is physically blighted? It certainly reads that way.
There could be some fragile compromise that is at stake if the amendment is changed (this would be typical), but that is no excuse for pushing a poor amendment through.
