Historic & Diverse Coalition Calls for Eminent Domain Reform In Minnesota

WEB RELEASE:
January 5, 2006
CONTACT:
Institute for Justice Minn. Chapter
Lee McGrath (612) 435-3451
Minn. Automobile Dealers Assoc.
Scott Lambert (651) 291-2400

St. Paul, Minn. An historic coalition of civil rights groups, religious leaders, trade associations, concerned citizens, and officials from Minnesota¹s major political parties will gather at the Capitol today to announce legislation reforming the State¹s eminent domain laws.

The coalition, called Minnesotans for Eminent Domain Reform (MNEDR), was formed following the U.S. Supreme Court¹s infamous decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which allowed the government taking of private property for private uses because of the possibility of generating more jobs or taxes. It includes representatives from the Institute for Justice, NAACP, Urban League, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Hmong Chamber of Commerce, Farmers Union, Farm Bureau, Teamsters, Minnesota Family Council, Minnesota Automobile Dealers Association, National Federation of Independent Business, other trade associations, ministers from local black churches, former Independent Party gubernatorial candidate Tim Penny, and individuals who have been threatened with or currently face takings of their property. (For a list of all the coalition members and a copy of the eminent domain abuse reform bill they support, visit www.mnedr.com.)

³Minnesotans from across the economic, ethnic and political spectrum support reforming the use of eminent domain,² said Sen. Tom Bakk (DFL-Cook) who will sponsor legislation in the Senate to end eminent domain abuse. ³This diverse coalition shows us that protecting homes, farms and small businesses is above partisan politics.²

³Minnesotans are demanding the Legislature reform eminent domain laws to protect what rightfully belongs to them,² said Rep. Jeff Johnson (R-Plymouth) who will sponsor the bill in the House. ³We don¹t need proposals that tweak the eminent domain process; we need genuine reform that will protect all property owners in Minnesota.²

³Cities can use eminent domain to create roads and public buildings, to remove genuine blight and to protect the public¹s health and safety,² said Lee McGrath, MNEDR¹s spokesman and executive director of the Minnesota Chapter of the Institute for Justice, which represents Susette Kelo and the other property owners in New London. ³What they cannot do is take property from A and give to B just because B promises to create more jobs and taxes with the land. If those are legitimate reasons to take someone¹s home or small business, then no piece of property in the state is safe from this abuse of government.²

Legislators in 40 other states have or will consider similar legislation in response to the U.S. Supreme Court¹s Kelo decision. The proposed legislation in Minnesota restricts the use of eminent domain by defining the constitutional requirement of ³public use² after decades of state courts allowing it to morph into ambiguous concepts such as public ³benefit² and public ³purpose.²

³Public use means taking for something the public will own and use, like a road or a post office. Taking property from the poor and giving it to rich developers is Robin Hood in reverse,² said Duane Reed, president of the Minneapolis Branch of the NAACP. ³It¹s bad public policy and Minnesotans want to see it stopped.²

In response to the Kelo decision, the proposed legislation prohibits the use of eminent domain to take properties solely for private economic development.

³Agricultural lands, especially those in expanding urban areas, provide a ready source for potential shopping malls, industrial parks and housing complexes,² said Kevin Paap, president of the Minnesota Farm Bureau. ³Condemnation of this land also results in farmland that has been in a family for several generations simply being taken away. It is up to the state legislature to correct this problem.²

The proposed legislation also limits municipalities¹ power to declare a property blighted to circumstances in which a building has structural building code violations or where the building owner has failed to address the structural deficiencies within a reasonable time not exceeding one year.

³Under today¹s loose standards in Minnesota, potentially any home or building not developed in the past five years could be considered blighted,² noted Sen. Sheila Kiscaden (I-Rochester). ³Unless the legislature passes real eminent domain reform, including tightening up the definition of blight, municipalities will continue to be able to do economic development under the guise of blight removal.²