As the Senate continues to ignore the will of the public by not considering the eminent domain constitutional amendment, there finally appears to be some legislators calling for some action.
In this AP article, there is a discussion of the current status of the amendment. A line in the article grabbed my attention:
“Opponents
argue that the amendment could discourage local governments from
courting new businesses because it will be harder to accumulate large
tracts of land.”
Um, yes, that’s the point. In fact,
if the amendment only “could discourage” local governments from taking
property for businesses, the amendment isn’t strong enough. The
amendment is supposed to “prohibit” local government from taking
property to give to businesses. It is telling that a law making
an action illegal only “could discourage” local governments from taking
that action.
As for the tired and disingenuous argument that a constitutional amendment isn’t necessary:
1)
North Carolina is the only state in the country that does not have even
one word in its constitution dedicated to protecting against eminent
domain abuse. We have the weakest property rights in the
country–it is not even close.
2) State statutes are the
only protection that we have to protect against Kelo-type
takings. Any protection can change at the whim of political
interests. Opponents to an amendment would have us believe that a
statute can protect our fundamental rights, such as property rights,
freedom of speech, and equal protection. If this were true, then
why have a constitution at all?
The need for a constitutional amendment is overwhelming, as pointed out in my recent report.
