|  |
 |
Our View - Will Iowa's eminent domain issue be resolved this year?
| | | | |
If ever there was an emotional issue it is the issue of whether or not a man's home is his castle. That is the essence of the fight over curbing eminent domain that led to a legislative bill protecting private property from undue eminent domain procedures. It also earned itself a veto from Gov. Tom Vilsack, a former Iowa mayor.
Should eminent domain as a tool for development and improvement of blighted areas in Iowa's cities and counties be a strong force, or should the law err in the other direction toward strict protection of private property, blighted or not? That's the central issue, and with Vilsack's veto, it is likely that issue will be revisited in a special session of the Iowa General Assembly very soon.
It is interesting in a divisive political climate such as we have statewide, not to mention nationwide, that this issue of eminent domain seems to bring together liberals and conservatives on one side, and developers and public officials on the other. Both want the new law to protect them.
Senate Democratic Leader Mike Gronstal of Council Bluffs has called for a special legislative session "to protect the property rights of Iowa families, small business owners, farmers and other Iowans." Sounds pretty Republican to us, and certainly no one is left out.
On the other hand, the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation wants to be certain that the bill's original intent is left intact. The IFBF has called for the legislature to override Vilsack's veto, saying the bill was a bi-partisan effort. The IFBF, through its president Craig Lang, said the governor's veto "put all farmers, homeowners and business owners at risk of being displaced by richer, more profitable enterprises." And, indeed, that's where the controversy lies.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision last year in Kelo v. New London, Connecticut that allows cities to literally take the properties of persons who live in an area where the city has determined more tax base could be had through new development, spurred a firestorm of emotion across the land and also spurred many a state legislature to pass bills restating the state's desire to protect its property owners. Developers and, often, local officials, were on the other side of the argument, hoping for the Supreme Court's view to prevail.
The simple fact is that almost any city or county could show that some current properties could generate more revenue and provide a better looking development than rows of modest frame homes or adjacent farms not producing as they once did. If the law were to side with developers and city officials, who seemingly are more concerned about the "looks" of the community and the tax base generated, than they are about people whose entire lives and very modest means are tied up in their properties, well, you no longer have a man's home as his castle, you have a man's property as ripe for the picking with no regard for his rights.
From the point of view of harried city or county officials, a little leeway in deciding these thorny issues of whether to make use of eminent domain would be welcomed. Gov. Vilsack thinks so, too, so he vetoed HF 2351 and asked the lawmakers to meet in special session to "fix it."
Legislative leaders believe that a simple veto override would violate a 1998 advisory opinion from Attorney General Tom Miller. That opinion left a legal cloud over whether the Legislature can override a gubernatorial veto after the regular legislative session is over. Gronstal, for one, thinks a veto override would be risky, further endangering property rights. The Farm Bureau said its members worked hard to get the bill passed with "overwhelming bi-partisan support," so the veto should be overridden in special session.
This type of problem often emerges when legislation is borne of emotion and when court opinions seem to go awry. If the Legislature meets, and if it overrides Vilsack's veto or comes up with a totally new eminent domain bill, still and all, the contention remains, the confusion continues and what was once a bedrock right is foggier than ever. Sometimes it's hard to know what's right.
| |
©MISSOURI VALLEY TIMES - NEWS 2009
| |
| |
|
  | Send us your community news, events, letters to the editor and other suggestions. Now, you can submit birth, wedding and engagement announcements online too!
Copyright © 1995 - 2009 Townnews.com All Rights Reserved. |
|
