The proposed amendment to the Constitution goes like this:
I headed to the voting booth with a clear understanding of Kelo v City of New London and figured this’d be a clear decision for everyone who wasn’t on a board of directors at a private company.
On the way in the door, both parties were handing out flyers with their candidates and ballot positions on them. I took the Democrats’ flyer and was shocked - SHOCKED! - to see that they were recommending a ‘No’ vote. I thought surely this was an obvious ‘Yes’ choice for the little guy, the Democratic base. So I asked her to clarify it.
She said “Eminent domain is the seizing of property by the government. We don’t want that, so ‘No’.” As soon as I said “But…”, she cut me off and said she couldn’t debate it there.
So I’m confused. How can the Democrats say No and the Pubs say Yes to this measure? Isn’t that backwards? How did they arrive at these positions?
It depends on what the current eminent domain wording is (if there is any at all). What’s in place right now may very well be more favorable to the “little guy” than what’s being proposed. (Sorry I don’t have specifics, I’m in a bit of a hurry to look it up right now)
What? I’m a pretty hardcore liberal and even I can see the need for eminent domain! Was it the actual Virginia Democratic Party handing them out or was it some fringe group?
But we already have eminent domain. The Amendment restricts the use of eminent domain to public good, not private good, as happened in Kelo. There was only one Democratic party and only one Republican party there, so I assume it was the legit guys. BTW, I only implied it in the OP, but the Republican Party’s flyer said to vote Yes, i.e. for the restriction.
It would be amended as follows:
that the General Assembly shall not pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, [del]nor any law whereby private property shall be taken or damaged for public uses, without just compensation, the term “public uses” to be defined by the General Assembly[/del]; and that the right to be free from any governmental discrimination upon the basis of religious conviction, race, color, sex, or national origin shall not be abridged, except that the mere separation of the sexes shall not be considered discrimination.
…
That the General Assembly shall pass no law whereby private property, the right to which is fundamental, shall be damaged or taken except for public use. No private property shall be damaged or taken for public use without just compensation to the owner thereof. No more private property may be taken than necessary to achieve the stated public use. Just compensation shall be no less than the value of the property taken, lost profits and lost access, and damages to the residue caused by the taking. The terms “lost profits” and “lost access” are to be defined by the General Assembly. A public service company, public service corporation, or railroad exercises the power of eminent domain for public use when such exercise is for the authorized provision of utility, common carrier, or railroad services. In all other cases, a taking or damaging of private property is not for public use if the primary use is for private gain, private benefit, private enterprise, increasing jobs, increasing tax revenue, or economic development, except for the elimination of a public nuisance existing on the property. The condemnor bears the burden of proving that the use is public, without a presumption that it is.
The underlined is the addition. I bolded the part where the deletion gets rewritten further down.
I’m a Democrat and I voted yes on this. As not having eminent domain is not an option I feel that it makes sense to limit it. How did they recommend voting on the other questions? There were two questions about increasing funding for libraries and public parks, right? I voted by mail mid-October so I can’t remember the rest aside from the candidates.
The central question in Kelo was who decides if it’s public use or not. The idea that the U.S. Consititution protects a landowner from her own state legislature would have seemed laughable to the Framers.
In this case, the Virginia constitution would be amended to keep the General Assembly from ever using any independent judgment about which companies and units of government should have the power of eminent domain. That’s a position that appeals to those who think government should be crippled, and not to those who think it can help solve problems.
That’s what the state Constitution is for – hence, the state constitutional amendment to clarify that the state legislature taking John Doe’s land to give it to Joe Blow is not “public use” (a conclusion that would seem obvious on its face to the Framers).
I read someplace this afternoon that the democratic party in Arlington was recommending a vote against changing the wording in the state constitution because they thought it should be a law, not a change to the constitution. I’ll try and dig it up.
The eminent domain amendment passed by a 3:1 margin. (This is in keeping with the general trend; Kelo is reviled by pretty much everybody other than the special interests that directly benefit from eminent domain abuse.)
The VA Dems were against it because several local governments were against it. As noted, it passed 3:1. Even I voted for it. I think Kelo want a bit too far, but I think the specific case it was built on really screwed the pooch. The family in question lost their house AND the development didn’t get built. A lose-lose all around. There do need to be limits, and if you’re going to push out new limits, don’t be both stupid and dickish.
The original SC decision was supported primarily by the liberals on the court and opposed primarily by the conservatives.
The same was also true for the public at large, IIRC.
It’s been noted that conservatives tend to be more protective of personal property rights than liberals, who view government authority more expansively as regards to property and financial matters generally.
I think the issue here is that there was already a post-Kelo statutory amendment to Virginia law. All I could tell is that the Democrats were satisfied with the statute and didn’t want it elevated to a constitutional amendment. I’m not sure what the entire reasoning was here.
That was my reason for a no vote. Not that I’m unalterably opposed to such a measure for its own sake, but I’m cautious and skeptical about amending a constitution for just any old thing.
Ever since the 2006 passage of the Virginia constitutional amendment to permanently enshrine marriage inequality and treat a whole group of citizens as second class, which I campaigned hard against with Equality Virginia but lost, I’m extremely wary about this process. If it can be legislated without amending the constitution, then leave the damn constitution alone.
Ah, thanks! I had never heard of the proposed amendment because I neglected to look up all the ballot issues. I voted for Fairfax libraries and parks is all. When I was walking into the polls, a party volunteer held out a Democratic ballot for me. I smiled and pointed to my head, saying “Got it all up here.” So—it’s just nice to confirm that great minds think alike.
Maybe because the entity that passes statutes is the same entity that exercises Eminent Domain? So if they have enough money waved under their noses, they can just modify/repeal the law, and then seize the orphanage for Scrooge McDuck’s new caviar factory. Whereas a constitutional amendment would tie their hands permanently.
Whether or not that’s true, all the liberal-minded people I know – and especially the more radical lefties – are extremely dubious of gov’t seizure of property via eminent domain.
In fact, I’d venture to say that it’s my vague impression that libs in general are against big government intrusion every bit as much as conservatives – when we’re talking about intrusion into the lives of private individuals. It’s corporate entities they don’t mind governing with a heavier hand.
Sure, there are some identifiable exceptions where liberals seem inclined to see an individual’s rights curtailed for what they consider the greater good; what some commentators seem to miss is that there are identifiable exceptions on the other side, where conservatives seem inclined to endorse welfare and living off the government – again, it’s corporate welfare and corporate subsidies they’re fine with.
Sometimes I wonder if we should be talking “pro-corporate” vs “anti-corporate” instead of liberal vs conservative.
