Any thoughts on the Eminent Domain law that Vilsack vetoed?

[rurallib]

The reason I ask is that the chief sponsor was my rep., Jeff Kaufmann. He is getting big play because of this. He had about as much to do with writing it as I did. He was basically handed it on day 1 as his "issue" for the session. From what I understand it was written by the Farm Bureau.
So Kaufmann gets to spout and sound intelligent while he is really little more than a tool. And he gets all this free pub for nothing. God we have a hard enough time in this district.
I don't know a lot about it. My concern (and I have not read the bill) is that it will place a heavy burden on municipalities who need to have the power to acquire land needed for growth or in some cases to comply with certain laws (eg sewage, water). Things seemed for the most part be ok in Iowa under present rules. This just seems like pandering on the back of the Kelso decision.

[CornField]

1. My limited knowledge

Last June this was a case before the SCOTUS and came down to a 5-4 decision which upheld a city's right to take private property for public betterment (including economic development) -- Kelo v. City of New London

It was interesting because it was one of the cases where O'Conner sided with Scalia and Thomas (in the dissenting opinion).

Here's a link to the decision: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf

Needless to say, this is a wedge issue for many. The interesting thing about it coming up in Iowa is that it is such a non-issue here. That is, the Castle Coalition, an anti-eminent domain think tank/action group, states that Iowa has had very few condemnations and threats of condemnation for private development in the past five years. They only found one area of private condemnations (Dubuque, waterfront redevelopment -- 8 property owners since 1990).

Probably the only controversy involved in this was that in 1999 the state legislature passed a law which effectively strengthened the rights of all Iowa property owners to more information about possible land grabs. Then, one year later, the legislature amended/modified their own law so that the new protections would only apply to agriculture owners.

So... mostly, here in Iowa, the eminent domain laws have only touched businesses -- particularly industrial businesses along Dubuque's waterfront area. (Although there was a case in 2001 (?) in which a realty company sued the City of Cedar Rapids for taking without notice -- the courts upheld CR in both appeals. I'm not sure if there is another appeal underway.)

If he is still there, a good person to talk to about this subject is Erin Coyle at the Dubuque Telegraph-Herald. He covered a lot of the controversy which followed the waterfront economic development project.

Here's my understanding -- eminent domain is very rarely used to oust mom and pop out of their family homestead. It is often used, however, in older industrial areas (brownfield, etc.) to allow cities to reclaim otherwise spoiled lands and re-work them into new economic development opportunities -- parks, housing, roads, transportation (such as airports,wharfs) and other use.

This is a hot-button issue for the GOP because -- just like gay marriage -- it is one of those things where the group can point at one or two instances where the law was used in a questionable manner. (Maybe destroying an older small business area to make way for a new industrial complex.) Pointing to these very few cases gives the right an emotional push. After all, how many of us like the idea that the government could just take away our land/property without so much as pre-notification and hearing? Once you wipe away the emotions, however, the truth is a stark contrast as to what's happening (although the GOP argues it won't be a contrast for long if we don't gain tighter control and set further limits).

Perhaps the best avenue is somewhere in the middle. Property owners should be notified if a government is considering taking of land/property. The government should be able to enact and enforce nuisance laws which require a certain upkeep of all property within their limits (as to prevent areas of blight which typically are the subject of eminent domain attempts).

Anyway... this is getting too long and I'm beat and should head to bed. Sorry for rambling.

[Broke Dad]

2. It comes down to the landed gentry vs. the economic development types

Eminent domain has never been abused in Iowa (okay maybe along 53rd in Davenport). The answer is easy . . . vote the bastards who wrongly condemned the property out of office. (Again it happened in Davenport).

On one side you have the great grandchildren who are living in the homestead house in the middle of an industrial park refusing to sell at any price and on the other side you have all of the cities and counties who want to attract new industry (like ethanol plants). If you are serious about a new plant and new jobs you have to be able to guarantee the potential business that they can get 10-20-40 acres together to build the plant and access roads, etc. The Farm Bureau conveniently forgets that many of these third and fourth generation do-nothings end up millionaires and multimillionaires when they get their condemnation award for their century farm in the middle of a development. Then they bitch about having to pay capital gains or inheritance taxes.

If Vilsack had signed this, you could kiss anything bigger than one or two city lots goodbye. I'm glad that Vilsack FINALLY did something that wasn't blessed by the Farm Bureau. It took him two whole terms. Jeff Kaufmann is playing to his landed gentry stuck in 1953 don't change the Iowa that voted for Ike base. Screw him and screw them. Because of them, we are growing slower than virtually every state around us.

[Debi]

3. I'm not well read on this

and it sounds like more on this thread know more than I do.

I wonder, though, why businesses need the assistance of the government to take private property for professional purposes?

What I keep hearing in Waterloo is that it will raise the cost of redevelopment projects.

I thought that there were specific due process steps that had to be taken in condemnation proceedings so that land owners didn't get screwed.

I thought the bill gave more power to the land owners (since the SC decision gave more power to the private businesses).

Am I anywhere near correct? :shrug:

[Broke Dad]

4. The problem is when you need to buy from 16 and 15 agree to sell . . .

Then to get enough land to build a new factory or Target warehouse, the government needs to condemn the 16th property to get the business. The condemned landowner always get above market price for their property.

[Debi]

5. So? They are taking the land the property owner OWNS

And doesn't want to sell!

Why shouldn't they get a better price if they don't want to sell?

We're not talking about a new library or school here, we're talking about a corporation. Why should a corporation need protection from a private land owner (provided by the government?) Isn't that a little backward?

[Broke Dad]

6. Depends on your point of view . . .

Usually, the one holdout owner does not want to sell at ANY price.

So what it comes down to is that a community works hard to attract a new business or a new industry. They identify a site that works logistically. The landowners are contacted and offered a good price for their land. Because most new projects are large, it usually involves MANY landowners. It seems like there is always one owner (or two) that say "screw you" I'm not selling for a bazillion dollars. So they can hold everyone, including the other landowners hostage because they don't want to sell. Under current law, by a majority vote of the city council, the city can declare the area necessary for a public purpose and begin the condemnation process to pay the holdout fair market value (actually usually significantly above fmv).

Do not forget that this is a democratic process. If the majority of the city do not want to "protect" a corporation and help it acquire land to expand or move to the community, their council members can vote "NO" or they can vote their council members out of office. It happens.

FYI, you hold your land on a "patent" from the U.S. government and under our "fee simple" land ownership regime, your ownership is at the discretion and pleasure of the sovereign. It is a system that we inherited from the king in Great Britain. Ask your lawyer friends. The American twist is that the government has to compensate you when it takes your land back. The king could just kick you off.

The Farm Bureau types claim that their only bitch is urban sprawl. Actually, they pitch a fit every time the DOT adds another section of 4 lane to Hwy 20 or Hwy 30 or Hwy 218, etc. Because it saves me hours (and I mean hours) every month when I am traveling from point A to point B in Iowa, I am a big fan of 4 lane highways. The Farm Bureau types can just sit on their bags of money that they were paid for their strip of farmland under the Avenue of the Saints (or any other 4 lane) and stfu.

[Debi]

7. Since you seem to understand this SOOOOOO much more than me

(and I am grateful you do, because I am at a TOTAL loss!)

How does the law that Vilsack vetoed change things? If in the end the hold-out land owner still ends up losing their land (but at least is fairly or even above fairly compensated) why wouldn't we be passing laws that continue to put the most power in the hands of the land owner?

I still don't understand why corporations need protection or assistance from the government against an individual.

I know I'm being redundant, and I don't mean to be, I just don't get it. I get the desire of new business or new industry coming into an area, and I get the desire of the community to do all it can to attract the business. But at what cost? What is next? Wal-Mart REALLY wants to build where Terrace Hill is, so let's tear it down dammit (Okay, overboard there, but my point is where do we stop?)

Thank you, thank you, thank you for your patience in explaining all of this to me - my husband won't even talk to me about it any more! x(

[Broke Dad]

8. HF 2351

Okay, the bill is HF 2351 and is 35 pages, so let me try to do the Readers Digest condensed version.

It redefines slum so that before a city can condemn slum property it has to jump through a ton of hoops.

It bans any condemnation of ag land for industry.

It restricts cities ability to resell land that they have condemned. (If they sell - they must offer it to the former owner).

It limits driveways across farms from highways to 40' and provides they must be on the boundary line for the 40 acre line.

It bans condemnation for city airports outside of city limits (this appears to be a clause to specifically kill a Pella based airport between Pella and Oskaloosa).

It limits condemnation to build dams or form lakes (except for gambling boats - just kidding).

It basically allows owners of condemned property to pay NO capital gains taxes on the money they receive.

And about 30 more pages of "hell no you can't do that" red tape to tell city council members that they are too stupid to govern without the Farm Bureau's oversight.

The voters in the cities are not calling for this legislation. If they don't like what the city council does, they vote them out of office. The people that are bitching are the farmers on the edge of the city limits. They believe that they have a God given right to grow $2 corn that we have to burn to get rid of and generate $300 per acre per year, when that same land will sell for $100,000 per acre and bring in a couple of hundred thousand dollars per year. The average farmer makes about $20 per acre per year (including the big ass federal check). At that rate they would have to farm for 5,000 years to make the same money they could make selling out to the new business. Or they can turn around, like some of my clients, and go a dozen miles down the road and buy twenty acres for every acre they sold to the new business. I know, I know . . . no two clods of dirt are alike. Great-great grandpa's rundown farm on the edge of town has been in the family since 1870 and it is a one of a kind home and eyesore.

My point in my earlier rant was that if a majority of the landowners want to sell and agree to sell and a majority of the citizens support a new industry or business coming to town, one holdout landowner should not be able to block economic development.

So if Target (not Wal-Mart) wants to build a new warehouse in your community and the city fathers, contractors and unions are drolling over the prospect that it will create 300 good jobs, and pay a hell of a lot of taxes into the local economy, should one property owner be able to block the warehouse? Even if Target and the city fathers have offered them $100,000.00 for a property that otherwise would only bring $5,000.00? In my opinion, "NO." Use eminent domain and condemn the property and build the warehouse.

It comes down to do we really want new business and industry in Iowa or do we want any one citizen to be able to stop something that the majority of us want?

[Debi]

9. Thanks!

I appreciate all the research you've done on this and explaining it all to me.

I guess we are just on opposite ends of the eminent domain (for private businesses) issue. Maybe that makes me regressive or a fan of the Farm Bureau (OH GOD!!!)

I don't know that this is purely a greedy farmer issue as Ed Fallon has jumped in to support the bill and request a specific platform at the Democratic State Convention :

<snip>

At the Democratic Party’s state convention on Saturday, June 17, I am proposing that the following plank be included in the party platform: “There are legitimate uses of eminent domain for public purposes, but Iowans need greater protection from its abuses. Therefore we support legislation giving greater protection to property owners from the seizure of private property for economic development purposes.”


I need the support of delegates and alternates to the state convention to help get this plank passed. It’s important to arrive at the Polk County Convention Center by 8:00 a.m., since we have to submit the plank with thirty delegate signatures by 9:00 a.m.

<snip>

I don't believe that 'economic development' can solve all the State's problems and frankly don't understand why a person should have to give up Grandpa's farm no matter what kind of eyesore it is solely to provide 300 jobs to the community (and I call bullshit on these corporations paying big tax dollars - not with the Iowa Values Fund and all the give-a-ways the IDED has provided).

Once our counties and parks and spare wetlands are full of big-box buildings that the corporations move to the next state after their TIF or tax abatements have expired, what will we do? Ask the previous owner of the land to come back, buy the land back from the city/county and tear down the old Target and try to farm it again?

That one hold-out has as much right to stay on their property as the other 15-or-so sell-outs have to sell theirs. Sometimes I think these large corporations pull this crap just to see how many hoops a town will jump through just to get their store in there (and then leave w/in a few years after destroying the good will of the community). Wal-Mart is opening up a new store in Waverly today - RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET from where the old Wal-Mart stands. What will Waverly do with the big-empty-box that was Wal-Mart? It will sit there, being more of an eye-sore than Grandpa's farm ever was.

Just doesn't make much sense to me. :shrug:

(I enjoy this conversation. Thanks again for providing all the information you have. I know at some point we'll be on the same side of an issue - otherwise why would we both be posting on this site!)

[Broke Dad]

10. You are welcome . . .

We are on opposite sides of the eminent domain issue.

That said, I am sooo against the Iowa Values Fund . . . I literally did everything in my power to keep it from becoming law in 2002 . . . only to be squashed by Visack. :grr:

Big box stores? They keep building them because people keep shopping in them. As far as Waverly, I think Hy-Vee should annex the old Wal-Mart and turn it into a wine and gourmet food court. Its not the box stores that run away after their TIF and subsidies are up, it is the orphan industries that have no suppliers or customers here. Luring new businesses in only works if they "fit" within the quilt of businesses already here . . . either customers or suppliers or in the same industry to the new business (example - Plastics company in Maquoketa which located there to supply plastic knobs to John Deere for their shift levers on tractors and heavy equipment. They picked Maquoketa to serve Moline, Dubuque and Waterloo.)

IMHO, we have too many fourth and fifth generation Iowans just taking up space on the century farm. And we have too many local officials who are chasing anything with a smokestack. So when a new business "fits" and it will result in more good jobs, I would condemn the holdout century farm in the blink of an eye to bring the jobs to the area. Ed Fallon's and Des Moines problem is that the western suburbs are leapfrogging each other without a good master plan. That's not an eminent domain problem, that's a land use planning problem. Urban or suburban sprawl is not going to solved by passing HF 2351 or anything like it.

Bottom line, don't kill the goose that laid the golden egg, Without the growth that we have going on in the six metro counties this state would be sucking wind . . . big time!

[Debi]

11. I'm probably overly sensitive to the issue

We just got the shaft from the Board of Supervisors last year on a zoning change for property by our home and it really stung....nah it pissed me off!!

See, our home is the newest home in our 'area' it was built in 1974-75. The other properties around our home were built in the 50's (except across the 'pond' from us where the people tore down the 'old' home and built on the same spot - still having only one home on the property). We live above a wetland area (created in the early '80s off of some of our land) and protect it VEHEMENTLY. No homes have been built since the wetland preserve was created - well acutally expanded, it was a natural wetland the County just decided to designate it and enlarge it. A person bought the land across the road from us and immediately started tearing it up to build ponds so he could hunt...YEP HUNT ACROSS THE ROAD FROM A WETLAND PRESERVE! :GRR: Then he went to the BOS to get new zoning so he could build a house there - well we resisted b/c as soon as you build one house others will want to build more houses and there goes the wetlands (sure the pond will still be there - but the water fowl won't). One member of the BOS actually said "A man should be able to do what he wants on his own property". NOT THE FRICKIN POINT YOU IDIOT, WHAT ABOUT EVER OTHER PROPERTY AROUND THE MAN'S HOUSE???!!! Now the guy is moving dirt and making noise and shooting his damn gun and it's grinding on my nerves. If the BOS would have had a little back-bone and some desire to see the ONLY EXISTING NATURAL WETLAND remain undisturbed I'd feel a little better. Instead 'Hunter Jack' will have his home built soon enough and he can shoot them geese and ducks from his back porch. That is until he requests that the BOS let him parcel out his land and build a few more homes so everyone can enjoy what he was able to destroy. :thumbsdown:

We were not able to protect our property from the greedy BOS who only see the value of that douchebag's property go up (and their tax asking go up). I know it has nothing to do with the eminent domain issue, but you can see my wounds from this fiasco have not healed.

We agree on stores, smaller and local owned are ALWAYS better. I'd rather pay $3.00 for an item at a local store than $2.59 at a big box knowing that I'm helping my local economy in my very small way.

d.

[Rambis]

12. Tom explained this in a meeting at the convention

He vetoed the bill because it said that the home owner would have to pay for their moving expenses out of the dividend they get for the land. He called it a bait and switch by the repugs. He also siad if he had singed it it would have stopped a 200 million dollar vision Iowa project (I believe in Clinton). He told them to go back and take those things out and he would sign it. The repugs want a vote now so they can say Tom Vilsack doesn't support land owners rights! Political move as usual.