[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 14]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 19404-19405]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      CAREFUL AND DELIBERATE ACTION BEST ON EMINENT DOMAIN REFORMS

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, July 29, 2005

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, many of us have serious concerns 
about the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Kelo 
v. New London and the potential effects on private property owners from 
local governments' exercise of the power of eminent domain.
  Because of those concerns, I joined in voting for H. Res. 340, 
expressing disapproval of that decision, which was passed by the House 
last month.
  However, as I said then, although I agreed with the resolution's 
statement that Congress could seek to ``address through legislation any 
abuses of eminent domain by State and local government;'' I think we 
should be reluctant to take actions to curb what some--perhaps even a 
temporary majority--in Congress might consider improper actions by a 
State or local government.
  The States, through their legislatures or in some cases by direct 
popular vote, can put limits on the use of eminent domain by their 
agencies or local governments. I think this would be the best way to 
address potential abuses, and I think we in Congress should consider 
taking action to impose our ideas of proper limits only as a last 
resort.
  So, I am glad to note that in Colorado discussion is already underway 
regarding possible changes to our laws that would modify the scope of 
eminent domain authority available to local governments.
  A good example of that discussion is a recent editorial in Grand 
Junction's Daily Sentinel, which notes with approval a proposal for an 
amendment to the Colorado constitution but points out that its 
proponents should be cautious in their approach.
  I think the editorial's points are well taken. I attach its full text 
and commend it to the attention of all our colleagues.

        [From Grand Junction (CO) Daily Sentinel, July 21, 2005]

                Voters Could Check Eminent-Domain Abuse

       State Rep. Al White, R-Winter Park, is joining a host of 
     state government officials around the country who want 
     tougher state rules on government's use of eminent domain to 
     condemn private property.
       Efforts are being pushed in at least 25 states in the wake 
     of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month that said the 
     city of New London, Conn., could condemn homes in an older 
     middle-class neighborhood and turn them over to private 
     developers for razing to build condos, a hotel, athletic 
     clubs and other amenities.
       Millions of Americans were understandably angered by the 
     ruling. It opens the possibility that any home or small 
     business can be condemned if some developer can demonstrate 
     that his plans can produce more revenue for local government.
       White says he intends to push a measure in the Legislature 
     for a state constitutional amendment that would prohibit 
     local government from taking land for private gain. If it 
     doesn't pass the Legislature, he said he will mount a 
     petition drive to get it on the 2006 ballot.
       White's concerns for the rights of private property owners 
     are well taken. But White should be cautious about 
     overreaching. There are some cases where it may be legitimate 
     for government to condemn private property and allow another 
     private entity to benefit from it.
       Even before this June's ruling, the Supreme Court had long 
     held that governments can use eminent domain to condemn 
     private property and turn it over to other private developers 
     in order to eliminate blight.
       Although ``blight'' may sometimes be poorly defined, 
     eliminating health and safety issues associated with severely 
     run-down or neglected properties meets a legitimate public 
     need.
       White's proposal or any other aimed at reducing the 
     potential for eminent-domain abuse in Colorado must recognize 
     that public need and provide clearly worded conditions under 
     which it could be allowed.

[[Page 19405]]



                          ____________________