Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005

PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - November 03, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me the time and permitting me to speak on this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the frustration that we have heard on the floor, the reaction to the Kelo decision which I personally looked at those circumstances. I was troubled in terms of what was proposed in that city.

But I am concerned that we have the big picture in mind, because we have been dealing with eminent domain for decades. We do not have a national crisis here. What we had was a State and local government that did not do their job appropriately.

The Supreme Court, appropriately, indicated that this was not a constitutional issue. There are tools. There are remedies.

I am a former local official. I dealt for years, as public works commissioner for the City of Portland, with things that dealt with redevelopment. We rarely if ever used eminent domain. The fact that it was there made a difference to be able to do things the public wanted.

I hope that Members reflect on the dangers of having the Federal Government rush into something that is appropriately the province of State and local affairs. Think about what the approach you are advocating here would have had on cleaning up Times Square. This was an area that for years was a center of violence and vice. Eminent domain was used to transform Times Square with the crime rate plummeting and change the face of that area.

There are communities around the country where this has been done. Look at the Roxbury neighborhood in Boston or look out the door here of the Capitol at Pennsylvania Avenue, where eminent domain was used in the 1960s and 1970s to reformulate the face of it.

I understand the sensitivity. We do not want it abused. But, for heavens sake, we should be careful before we rush in with a Federal solution which may have unintended consequences.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court Ruling in Kelo v New London sparked many fears among citizens that their property was at risk of being taken away by the government. These fears, however, are unwarranted and stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of eminent domain.

Eminent domain is a power granted local governments by the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court decision in no way precluded the rights of States to place further restrictions on eminent domain and to more narrowly define public use. The court leaves these rights to local officials and citizens for public debate. In my experience as a local elected official, eminent domain was the absolute last resort, but it was an important tool to have if was absolutely necessary.

In the discussion on the House floor today, my colleagues failed to recognize the many benefits we experience thanks to eminent domain. Twenty years ago, Times Square was a notoriously dangerous neighborhood in New York City. Eminent domain was used to take 13 acres of land, condemning 56 lots and moving 404 tenants. The public-private redevelopment included a highly successful mixture of for-profit and non-profit theaters, retail facilities, hotels, and office buildings. What was once a blighted, unsafe neighborhood is now a safe and vibrant city center.

Connecting the U.S. Capitol and the White House, Pennsylvania Avenue is one of this country's most important thoroughfares. Fifty years ago, however, it was a street bordered by many problematic land uses and buildings that significantly detracted from its role in the life of Washington, D.C. and America. In 1972, Congress created the Pennsylvania A venue Development Corporation, which in turn exercised the power of eminent domain to revitalize this important avenue of American life.

This bill is a hasty political response to a narrow Supreme Court decision. I am concerned that it is overly broad and will have many unintended consequences for our States and communities and hamper their ability to build safer, healthier and economically secure neighborhoods. I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill and allow local governments to reform eminent domain laws in manners consistent with their communities' needs.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, we can all agree that Federal powers should not be used to enrich the powerful and the wealthy, but the first response to Kelo should be from responsible local and State governments, not the United States Congress. One narrow Supreme Court decision should not be the basis for an overbroad Federal amendment that will have many unintended consequences.

Earlier I asked what would be the impact if this legislation had been passed for the revitalization of Times Square, where eminent domain transformed one of the most notorious places in America or the Dudley Street neighborhood initiative in the Roxbury Dorchester area in Boston or just outside our window where we have had Pennsylvania Avenue restored using eminent domain.

I would strongly suggest that the gentleman from North Carolina's approach is a more reasonable and prudent one. We do not have a crisis at this point. State and local governments should be dealing with this in an appropriate fashion. We should not have overbroad legislation that could have many unintended consequences.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov