Assault on Private Property Rights

[nephorm]

[quote]Cream wrote:
Yes I’m suggesting exactly that. Time to hit the books for a little perspective.
[/quote]

How can I put this lightly? I know: Fuck you, buddy.
Now that we have that out of the way…

The kind of perspective that wouldn’t allow someone to seriously compare Hitler and Abe Lincoln in the same sentence without suffering an explosive aneurism. Medically, this is known as the “ignorant hyperbole syndrome” (see Dick Durbin).

Well, if you’d applied your critical reading skills to what I wrote, you’d realize a few things. A) I did not group the Hitler and Abe Lincoln quote, I merely joked about their coincidence. B) I followed up by saying that no, I did not think Abe Lincoln “was as bad as” Hitler. I said I would not equate them. When HeadHunter said he wouldn’t “classify them together,” I said they did belong to several of the same classes, including the class “humans.” That should’ve given you an inkling of my point.

Actually, start out by looking up the word “despot”, and comparing it to how other presidents and then how actual tyrants have acted. Say, FDR? Gelon? Or Hitler, if you’re going to go overboard?

I’ve looked the word up. I use it on a near daily basis. I’ve read it in Montesquieu, Rousseau, Constant, Nietzsche, and Pascal to name a few. Have you? Dictionary.com says “A ruler with absolute power” and “A person who wields power oppressively; a tyrant.” I would add that the “spring of despotism,” as Montesquieu would say, is the arbitrary exercise of arbitrary power. Capricious government.

Really? Why was that? Because he didn’t want to get rid of slavery or because he felt that it was not in his power to do so?

I never said he didn’t “want to.” You like to read things into what I write. I’m noticing a trend.

“To force the issue”? How about because he said he had no legal authority to do so (oh, that’s right he was a despot!)? And then he turned around and freed the slaves that he thought he could LEGALLY free (even though he was a tyrant).

The Emancipation Proclamation could not legally free anyone. The states had seceded, and had their own government. That’s like the US declaring that all French people shall get their French taxes back.

HINT: he had no power to do so as President, but reasoned that as Commander in Chief, he could do as he pleased with captured or uncaptured enemy war materiel (slaves).

And yet, the war was not over. Since when can you do what you want with “uncaptured enemy war materiel?” Don’t you have to capture something before you can do something with it?

It’s ok, I understand there are people out there who like to say things like “We didn’t really land on the moon”, “Communism was a good idea”, “There are no heroes”, and “The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery,” too. You are just as wrong as they are.

There are also people who exaggerate for effect, and who expect that others will not take an offhand comment so very seriously.

You are right about one thing, though – Lincoln stole all my rights. I don’t have the right to a trial. I still have the right to forcibly secede as soon as it looks like I will not be able to control the government anymore. I am actually a slave writing this from a shack downriver.

Now, if I were to take you as literally as you took me… but anyway, I didn’t realize you were a contemporary of Lincoln, and lived through the Civil War. What does your diet look like?

How would you have won the war in his place?

I don’t have the time to get into this, nor the inclination to hijack this thread even further. Let’s just say I have sympathy for states’ rights.

I know, you would not have arrested anyone or reacted forcefully to treason or brutal violence.

Peaceful secession? If a number of states feel disenfranchised and wish to form their own confederacy, and do not wish to wage war, I have a hard time disagreeing with that.

[quote]
Easy to criticize, easy to talk, hard to accomplish anything worthwhile. Write this on your mirror.[/quote]

Lucky for you, you have the internet to give you that sense of accomplishment. I’m a political theorist. I’m supposed to shut up and tow the line? Is that what you’re saying? Don’t criticize unless you can do better personally? Sorry, not how the game is played. Deal with it.

[deanec]

Check this out…

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NH_SOUTER_PROPERTY_NHOL-?SITE=NHMAL&SECTION=STATE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[Headhunter]

I want to donate to the funding to buy this farmhouse. This is one of the best ideas I’ve seen – let these jackasses feel the effects of their rulings.

[hedo]

Hope this gets approved. See how the judicial Prince’s feel when kicked out of their own castle’s.

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter’s land.
Justice Souter’s vote in the “Kelo vs. City of New London” decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter’s home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called “The Lost Liberty Hotel” will feature the “Just Desserts Caf?” and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon’s Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged.”

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

“This is not a prank” said Clements, “The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development.”

Clements’ plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others."

[vroom]

Sounds like Justice to me… take the home of one of the judges so the community can earn more tax revenues. Yepper!

[BostonBarrister]

This is actually kind of amusing (I’ve snipped some hyperbolic language from the original, and an argument based on the part of the quote that is disputed):

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/7/26/1614/64857

A Lie of Insane Proportions
By: Leon H ? Section: Democrats

A tip of the hat to John Cole for discovering this incredible bit from DNC chair Howard Dean:

http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200507/POL20050725a.shtml

The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is ‘okay’ to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is.

[NOTE: There is some dispute on the quote, as it was quoted elsewhere as: “We have a republican appointed supreme court that decided they can take your house and put a Sheraton Hotel in there.”

…

…, [I]nsofar as there are “right wing” members to the Supreme Court, they are indisputably named William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. All of whom dissented with the majority in the Kelo case to which Chairman Dean is referring. The liberals, on the other hand (Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Souter) unanimously thought that the government seizing your house to put a hotel there was a fine idea. The moderates (O’Connor and Kennedy) split down the middle.

At this point, you must believe that Chairman Dean was either deliberately lying or stunningly ignorant. Which leaves us to ask the question - was Chairman Dean completely ignorant of the current composition of the Supreme Court …? Was he also completely ignorant of the breakdown of the Kelo vote, or does he view Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Souter as “right-wing”?

…

UPDATE 16:21:00 EDT by Leon H (with more help from John): Lest we forget the House vote on this:

Property Ruling Strikes Nerve in House

[i]WASHINGTON ? Angry over a recent Supreme Court decision, the House on Thursday began a legislative drive to roll back the power of local governments to seize homes and other private property for economic development projects.

By a vote of 231 to 189, the House approved an amendment forbidding the administration from spending money on local projects that seize private property for business development.

“What all of us who wish to see this legislation enacted into law want to make sure happens is that the federal government’s money isn’t used to finance taking someone’s property from them to build a strip mall,” said Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.).

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California was among those who voted against the amendment, saying she opposed withholding federal dollars “for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court, no matter how opposed I am to that decision.”

The vote was loosely along party lines: 192 Republicans and 39 Democrats voted to approve; 157 Democrats, 31 Republicans and one Independent were opposed.[/i]

We’ll … simply note that the wing on the side of government property seizure ain’t the right wing.

[BostonBarrister]

I, for one, am happy to see people fighting back against these abuses.

---

Eminent-Domain Uproar
Imperils Projects

By MICHAEL CORKERY and RYAN CHITTUM
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
August 3, 2005; Page B1

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that governments had broad power to take private property to boost economic development, real-estate executives cheered.

But an unexpected backlash against the ruling stopped the cheering and threatens to derail some projects that depended on the use of eminent domain to seize property.

In the St. Louis suburb of Florissant, Mo. – a historic city that boasts what is said to be the oldest Catholic church between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains – developer MLP Investments pulled out of a planned $30 million project to build condos, lofts and retail space when the owner of a piece of vacant land refused to sell. The city could have used eminent domain to force the sale of the land – a “dump” according to Mayor Robert G. Lowery – but MLP wanted no part of that. The project, which was supposed to raise tourism, is now stalled.

MLP did not reply to calls seeking comment but has publicly blamed soil and flooding problems, in addition to the eminent-domain issue, for pulling out. City officials, however, say the real reason was eminent domain. “The company did not want the adverse publicity,” says the mayor. “People don’t understand what eminent domain is. They think it’s always taking grandma out of her house, and that’s not true. I wouldn’t touch anything like that. That’s political disaster.”

In the six weeks since the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Kelo v. New London case, bills have been introduced in Congress and in more than half of the state legislatures that would restrict, to varying degrees, the use of eminent domain for private development. Delaware has gone the furthest, passing a law restricting the use of eminent domain. In Alabama, legislation curbing eminent domain for economic purposes has passed both houses and awaits the governor’s signature.

Real-estate and economic-development officials are growing increasingly concerned that the backlash will block more projects, potentially causing big losses for developers and canceling long-planned projects.

In Washington, D.C., a proposed federal ban on giving federal money to communities that use eminent domain for private developments could imperil the Skyland Shopping Center project, which has been 15 years in the making. “There are a lot of things against us every step of the way,” said Kathy Chamberlain, vice president of a nearby neighborhood association. “Why is it so hard for us to get a shopping center we can use?”

The project, in the southeast part of the city, would replace a cluster of nail salons, a liquor store and check-cashing facility with a big-box discount retailer, a restaurant and bookstore. City economic-development officials, who say the project could still go through without federal money, have notified six owners that their property will be condemned to make way for the center, which is designed to improve the neighborhood’s shopping and create jobs.

But the backlash against the Supreme Court ruling has emboldened land owners to fight the seizures. In Washington, the business and property owners had already been fighting the seizure. Elaine Mittleman, a lawyer for some of them, says the city never proved the area was blighted to support its use of eminent domain. “Why should they lose a business just so people can shop at Target?” she asks.

Real-estate developers and government officials are frustrated that they have not responded more effectively to the forces fighting eminent domain. But disparate interests within the groups that depend on eminent domain have made that difficult. The International Council of Shopping Centers won’t take a stand on the issue because some members are at risk of being forced to sell by eminent domain, while others benefit from the action.

“Our position is we believe in private-property rights, but at the same time we recognize that eminent domain has a use in the private cycle,” says Malachy Kavanagh, a spokesman for the group.

Others say the benefits of eminent domain should be emphasized. Developers who focus on urban areas say the current backlash could slow the revitalization of cities, in particular the recent boom in urban housing.

“To do any kind of urban redevelopment without eminent domain is to eliminate half of the potential sites for redevelopment,” says William S. Friedman, chief executive officer of Tarragon Corp., a New York developer specializing in urban housing. He says the use of eminent domain is overstated. “Rather than use eminent domain, you bend over backwards because of the political repercussions,” he says.

Mr. Friedman’s company is building 1,100 rental and condo apartments in the old industrial city of Hoboken, N.J., across the Hudson River from Manhattan. Instead of tossing people from their homes, Mr. Friedman says the scenarios are often like the one he encountered where a group of relatives inherited a rooming house and couldn’t organize themselves to decide to sell – a common scenario in urban redevelopment, where properties often have multiple and disparate owners. Under the threat of condemnation, the family members settled before going to court.

In Hoboken, the city is condemning the one remaining property that didn’t settle, a former casket company.

Leading the charge against eminent domain is the Institute for Justice, the nonprofit law firm based in Washington that argued and lost the Kelo case in the Supreme Court but has scored big in the court of public opinion.

The group has a Web site cataloging hundreds of eminent-domain cases around the nation and offering “Eminent Domain Abuse Survival Guides.” The group has printed T-shirts, with a picture of a huge hand about to squash a home. It says the Kelo decision focused the public’s attention on a longstanding, but little-known, power of government.

“It’s finally dawning on homeowners and small businesses that this could happen to me,” says Dana Berliner, a lawyer at the Institute for Justice.

Whether the Institute for Justice can take credit or not, the issue has struck a nerve with Americans. In Connecticut, where the Supreme Court case originated, a Quinnipiac University poll shows just how much the eminent-domain issue resonates. By an 11-to-1 margin, those surveyed said they opposed the taking of private property for private uses, even if it is for the public economic good. According to the poll, 89% of those surveyed were against condemnations for private economic development, compared with 8% for them. Douglas Schwartz, head of the poll, says he has never seen such a lopsided margin on any issue he has polled.

Real-estate and economic-development executives say it’s difficult to counter the emotional side of the argument that focuses on individual property rights. “It makes better headlines if there is an 85-year-old grandmother who is losing her house because of a highway,” says Jeffrey Finkle, president of the International Economic Development Council, a nonprofit group based in Washington.

The group has posted an eminent-domain resource kit on its Web site and is talking to members of Congress about the importance of using eminent domain to redevelop cities and attract business.

Write to Michael Corkery at michael.corkery@wsj.com and Ryan Chittum at ryan.chittum@wsj.com

[BostonBarrister]

This is definitely federalism in action – and in a good way, in my opinion. The USSC took it upon itself to read restrictions on government power out of the Constitution, and the citizens are putting them back in – albeit in a piecemeal fashion.

Perhaps there’s enough outrage to get an amendment to the U.S. Constitution… though of course it’s already in there. What we really need is an amendment that says: “The USSC will believe that each section of the the Constitution means what it says, given the understanding at the time it was passed; no more and no less.”

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_07_31-2005_08_06.shtml#1123164130

Todd Zywicki, August 4, 2005 at 10:02am

Alabama Says “Don’t Mess With Our Property”:

Alabama yesterday became the first state to limit Kelo-style takings, unanimously passing legislation in a special session ( Alabama limits eminent domain - Washington Times ). My favorite quote is from one of the sponsors in the Alabama Senate:

[i]"We don't like anybody messing with our dogs, our guns, our hunting rights or trying to take property from us," says state Sen. Jack Biddle, a sponsor of the law.[/i]

As the owner of two Labrador Retrievers, I’m with Sen. Biddle on this one.

Other states are exploring similar legislative and state constitutional responses:

[i]Calling the high court's June 23 ruling "misguided" and a "threat to all property owners," [Alabama Governor Bob] Riley said, "A property rights revolt is sweeping the nation, and Alabama is leading it."

The backlash against the judicial ruling has not received much attention in the national press, although legislative leaders in more than two dozen states have proposed statutes and/or state constitutional amendments to restrict local governments' eminent-domain powers.

Besides Alabama, legislation to ban or restrict the use of eminent domain for private development has been introduced in 16 states: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas.

Legislators have announced plans to introduce eminent-domain bills in seven more states: Alaska, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Dakota, South Carolina and Wisconsin, and lawmakers in Colorado, Georgia and Virginia plan to act on previously introduced bills.

In addition, public support is being sought for state constitutional prohibitions in several states -- Alabama, California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey and Texas.[/i]

I have been contacted by some cities that are considering similar limitations as well (I’m not sure if they are public yet).

Sadly for Justice Souter ( The Volokh Conspiracy - - ) , the story does not report New Hampshire as one of the states looking at imposing such limits, so it looks like he is stuck having to take his chances with the political processes to try to fend off the private developer that wants to build the Lost Liberty Hotel on his property.

[Marmadogg]

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemen,

This is one of those issues that I think most people will agree has scary implications.

There is so much fear about “Conservative Activism.”

This is the converse of that.

When we see it in action, it is frightening as hell.

BB, what would the process look like to reverse an unlawful and unconstitutional ruling like this?

Is there a time limit before taking it back up?

Could W.'s new appointments make this one of their first priorities to reverse?

Either way, this must not stand.

Imagine having this sort of power in the hands of a vindictive council.

JeffR[/quote]

Roberts appointment will not fix this as O’Conner dissented on this one.

[reddog6376]

[quote]HardcoreHypnosis wrote:

I believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, by that I mean government is limited to those functions specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Those functions do not include subsidies,etc…

So Education, Social Security, Medicare, etc… is out. But most americans will trade freedom for security, and that is where we stand now. Most want to feed at the government trough .
[/quote]

Amen brother!

[vroom]

The world would be so much better off if we simply quit educating people…

[reddog6376]

[quote]vroom wrote:
The world would be so much better off if we simply quit educating people…[/quote]

The U.S. Federal Dept. of Education has never educated anybody. Leave to the States what is not explicitely named by the Constitution as a federal responsibility.

[Kuz]

BB - thanks for the updated articles and keeping this topic prevalent in everyone’s minds. I’ll see if I can find some more info from local CT sites and newspapers how this is being handled. I know the Kelo decision has come up in the local legislature recently as well.

[vroom]

Red, I’m not convinced moving things down one layer is truly enough to fix the flaws… though at least there are then competing examples for people to argue about… hmmmm.

[reddog6376]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Red, I’m not convinced moving things down one layer is truly enough to fix the flaws… though at least there are then competing examples for people to argue about… hmmmm.[/quote]

I’m just paraphrasing the Constitution man…

[Slaughter]

It’s not just the US where this is an issue. Recently the Province of Ontario expropriated a large chunk of farmland about 20 miles from my house so Toyota can build their new plant on it.

I agree that Toyota’s new plant will benefit the local economy, but what’s wrong with letting Toyota buy the land privately? If the Province wants to reimburse them for the purchase as an insentive that’s fine. Then nobody is forced off of land they aren’t willing to part with - especially when some of these farmers have been working the same land for 3 or 4 generations.

[Kuz]

[quote]Slaughter wrote:
It’s not just the US where this is an issue. Recently the Province of Ontario expropriated a large chunk of farmland about 20 miles from my house so Toyota can build their new plant on it.

I agree that Toyota’s new plant will benefit the local economy, but what’s wrong with letting Toyota buy the land privately? If the Province wants to reimburse them for the purchase as an insentive that’s fine. Then nobody is forced off of land they aren’t willing to part with - especially when some of these farmers have been working the same land for 3 or 4 generations.[/quote]

Great point. Why does the government need to step in when free market forces should just allow the parties (the land owner and Toyota) to come to a decision on what the right/fair market price of the land is?

If governments will step in to “help out” their local communities by using eminent domain to give land to businesses, what incentive do those businesses have in the future to give a realistic asking price for land? The land may be worth $500,000, but they only bid to $400,000 if they know the government will eventually step in anyway.

Kuz

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]Kuz wrote:
Slaughter wrote:
It’s not just the US where this is an issue. Recently the Province of Ontario expropriated a large chunk of farmland about 20 miles from my house so Toyota can build their new plant on it.

I agree that Toyota’s new plant will benefit the local economy, but what’s wrong with letting Toyota buy the land privately? If the Province wants to reimburse them for the purchase as an insentive that’s fine. Then nobody is forced off of land they aren’t willing to part with - especially when some of these farmers have been working the same land for 3 or 4 generations.

Great point. Why does the government need to step in when free market forces should just allow the parties (the land owner and Toyota) to come to a decision on what the right/fair market price of the land is?

If governments will step in to “help out” their local communities by using eminent domain to give land to businesses, what incentive do those businesses have in the future to give a realistic asking price for land? The land may be worth $500,000, but they only bid to $400,000 if they know the government will eventually step in anyway.

Kuz[/quote]

If the local governmemnt didn’t assist Toyota, someone else likely would have and the plant would have been built elsewhere.

Like it or not that is the way the world works.

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]
vroom wrote:
Red, I’m not convinced moving things down one layer is truly enough to fix the flaws… though at least there are then competing examples for people to argue about… hmmmm.

reddog6376 wrote:
I’m just paraphrasing the Constitution man…[/quote]

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

---

Of course, this only has meaning if construed under the original and actual limitation of the federal government to its enumerated powers – note that the original meaning of “interstate commerce” was not “anything that, in the aggregate, may tend to affect interstate commerce” nor was it “whatever the hell Congress wants.”

[Kuz]

Just thought I would put this out there as a bit of a Kelo update (since I have special interest in this case as a Connecticut resident):

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-eminent1102.artnov02,0,7548261.story?coll=hc-headlines-home

Bill Attacks Seizing Of Land

Unified House Reacts To New London Case

By DAVID LIGHTMAN
Washington Bureau Chief

November 2 2005

WASHINGTON – At a time when Republicans and Democrats have trouble agreeing on anything, the House is poised for overwhelming approval of landmark legislation to curb government’s power to take private property for economic development.

The bill, supported by conservative rural Republicans, members of the Congressional Black Caucus and dozens of others, would strip federal money from state and local governments if the funds were linked to a private development project that involved seizing private property.

The House is scheduled to vote on the measure today or Thursday. It would then go to the Senate, where Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said Tuesday, “I think there’s a lot of sympathy for [the bill]. There’s a lot of support for changes.”

The House’s action would be the latest in a swift series of congressional reactions to Kelo vs. New London, in which the Supreme Court ruled June 23 that the government could seize a home, small business or private property and transfer it to another private interest if the action helped a community’s economic development.

The decision allowed the eviction of seven families in New London’s Fort Trumbull area, and detonated a firestorm on Capitol Hill that’s still burning. Those evictions have since been rescinded under political pressure.

The House bill scheduled for debate today swept through the House Judiciary Committee, 27-3.

The House Agriculture Committee approved a similar bill last month, 40-1.

“The court essentially erased any protection for private property as understood by the founders of our nation,” said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., agriculture chairman.

The measure would cut off federal funds - for transportation, community development, rural aid or other kinds of assistance - that would be used to help any private development project on privately owned land that was seized by a state or local government under the power of eminent domain.

Governments could reapply for the money after two years, provided they no longer wanted to use the property for private development purposes.

The measure is being pushed by an unusual coalition of House members - longtime foes Reps. Tom DeLay, the former majority leader, and John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., a veteran civil rights activist, are among the key sponsors - as well as Connecticut delegation members.

Rep. Rob Simmons, a Republican whose 2nd District includes New London, recalled how his own family felt the impact of eminent domain in the 1960s when a highway came through their home.

“We fought, but eventually my family sold the house,” Simmons said. “I know how it feels to be dispossessed.”

The only serious opposition has come from mayors and other urban officials. Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez testified in September that provisions in the bill would hurt cities that wanted to develop projects such as his city’s Adriaen’s Landing.

Marilyn Mohrman-Gillis, director of policy and legislative affairs for the National League of Cities, on Tuesday called the bill punitive and unnecessary, and full of “unintended consequences.”

She said the bill was “sloppily worded” and predicted that it would have a “chilling effect” on private projects.

But the mayors have found themselves almost flattened by the steamroller revved up since the Supreme Court decision.

The two-year provision was seen as a way of allowing cities to reclaim money they may have lost.

“If they stop using eminent domain in that way, they should be able to get money,” said Dana Berliner, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which represented New London homeowners in the Kelo case.

The House vote will mark the fifth time in about four months that Congress has expressed itself on the issue.

A week after the court ruling, the House voted by a lopsided margin for a resolution expressing “grave disapproval” of the Kelo verdict.

“Eminent domain,” that resolution said, “should never be used to the advantage of one private party over another.”

At virtually the same time, the House approved a spending bill amendment promoted by Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., that barred state and local governments from getting certain funds if they used eminent domain to take land for private economic development.

The only setback for the Kelo backers was a House vote against denying the Supreme Court $1.5 million next year, an amount that was supposed to reflect the value of the property seized in the Kelo case.

In the Senate, backers of tougher eminent domain laws won a victory last month, though urban group officials were somewhat pleased at the outcome, too.

Senators attached a provision to a transportation/housing spending bill saying no federal money could be used to “support any federal, state or local projects that seek to use the power of eminent domain” unless that action is intended for a public use.

In a statement, the U.S. Conference of Mayors said Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., the provision’s chief sponsor, “appears to have listened to concerns” expressed by urban officials because the provision would be in effect for only a year.

The measure also calls for a national study of eminent domain.

Some senators welcomed the restraint.

“There’s a legitimate interest for Congress to look at this issue,” Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., said, “but we also don’t want to rush into this. I don’t want to see Congress playing the role of planning and zoning board.”

But Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who is leading the Senate charge on eminent domain reform, saw such developments as a small bump in a smooth road.

The issue is simple, Cornyn said: “The power of eminent domain should not be used simply to further private economic development.”

Copyright 2005, Hartford Courant