SB 245 Property Rights Protection Vote Held
Jun 30th, 2008 by David Anderson
Miracles can happen even if they are small ones. SB 245 (described in a previous post) is a bill which gave protection against the government using its powers of eminent domain to take property for public use against some individuals to benefit other private individuals without there being a legitimate public use like a road or school.
The Senate voted on the veto override (which required 13 votes, 3/5) 11 in favor and 9 opposed. The vote failed. The bipartisan bill looks dead in its current form for this year. The majority of Democrats flipped on this important issue. They would rather stand with a lame duck governor than the public. Unfortunately so did three Republicans who would have been the difference. I am not pleased with the result, but I do celebrate progress. Most people didn’t think we would even get a vote.
I favor ensuring the law in Kent County protects our rights regardless of the State’s stance.
No hiding what is. Here are your nine, as reported on other sites as of 9:30PM:
Amick (this is the biggest shock to me)
Blevins
Cloutier
Conner
Cook
DeLuca
Henry (issue arose from her own district)
Marshall
McDowell (of the 1st and 14th senate districts).
Blame ‘em all.
Diump them all.
Add to the list, Senator Adams Abstained. Any two of them would have given victory.
Of course, you could also ask them their reasons and have an actual discussion with them about it. I’m not saying they were right to vote against the override, but maybe they had reasons.
I was in the balcony when the vote was taken. It was heart-wrenching.
Mike M, you can bet I’m going to try to find out why my Senator (Cloutier) voted no. My heart sank.
But the fight will go on next year. Ed Osborne was of course disappointed, but undaunted.
P.S. Dave: It was great to meet you !
A hearty thank you to the Venables 11. It was a pleasure to meet you Shirley, and some of the crew. I loved the outpouring of the people. I was busy talking with legislators therefore I didn’t get to the balcony until they had started and it was already filled. I had to stand on the steps. I was quite pleased. It is great when the people are watching.
I cannot imagine what their reasons were, Mike!
I am dumbstruck by the fact that this compromise legislation is the result of one year of negotiations and supported by a veto-proof majority in the General Assembly, yet when the veto override vote is taken it did not prevail! The veto stands!!
What is wrong with this picture??? Plenty!!!
Here is a summary of the argument and counter argument from today’s News journal.
Minner vetoed the bill Saturday, saying in a letter to the Senate that it could restrict the state’s ability to get easements on property for beach preservation or other purposes and be more costly to taxpayers.
Venables criticized her decision and said her reasoning was merely an excuse.
“I think condemnation for the city of Wilmington is why she vetoed — not access to beaches,” he said.
Before the Senate’s vote, a representative from the Delaware League of Local Governments and the city of Wilmington asked legislators to uphold the veto.
“We believe it’s not good for the city, but we also believe it’s not good for the state in general,” said William S. Montgomery, chief of staff for Baker. “You have current state laws … dealing with eminent domain that provide the proper checks and balances to protect property rights of property owners. They also protect another thing and that is they protect the people’s purse.”
Montgomery said the bill would have given landowners the ability to gouge the government by pumping up the price of their property in the event of a dispute.
“Ultimately, it is the little guy, it is the taxpayer who pays,” he said.
Personally, I am against the bill for the sole reason that I see it as the only hopes of saving Wilmington. As Delawareans, we should be ashamed to have Wilmington and its unbelievably high murder rate within our borders. To me, the only way to end this blight on our state is with continued development. Surely others will disagree with forcing out some of our needier citizens, but, to me, ending the senseless murders and drug wars is worth it. Wilmington is small enough and there are enough investors to make it work. I find it selfish to refuse to sell your dilapidated auto repair shop, while people are being shot nearly everyday. Perhaps, I am wrong to expect Wilmington to change in my lifetime, but I just find it unfathomable that I cannot go to work without the real fear of being robbed and shot.
Also, as far as property rights go, the Supreme Court and the federal government have always held that it is not truly our property. It is the government’s property and they just allow us to “own” it. It has never been a fundamental right to “own” the property to the extent that we can tell the government to shove off. What we do have is a fundamental right to due process, both substantive and procedural due process.
Essentially, the question is not whether the government can take our land, but rather under what circumstances can the government do so. So I disagree with the way some of our Gubernatorial candidates are framing the issue; Minner did not abuse the rule of law nor violate any real property rights. Feel free to disagree with her, as many of you do, but lets keep the conversation honest.
I whole-heartedly disagreed with the Kelo decision, where the sole reason for taking the property was economic development. The court adapted an overly expansive view of taking property “for the public good.” I am definitely against taking property for the sake of creating jobs or increasing sales and taxes.
I am not against the City of Wilmington having the power to pay Ed Osbourne an above market value amount of $ so that we can continue to try to fix Wilmington. I understand the construction lobby in this state is disturbingly powerful and I am sure they don’t give to sh*t’s about the people of Wilmington, but I do believe the main reason for trying to take these properties is to revitalize Wilmington.
So, you’re not against Wilmington’s eminent domain, but you are against eminent domain for economic-development? Follow this issue much, bc?
Have you been paying attention to the plans that were released for that part of Wilmington, bc? Ed Osbourne’s shop and the block surrounding it are designated for retail!!! So, what is it? You were for it before you were against it before you were for it? Help us out here.
Please, let me not stop there, OK? Where are the libraries, highways, utilities, etc? Where are the public-use facilities there? These lots are to be transferred to private entities for development, not for public-use. Not to mention, the City of Wilmington took it upon themselves to redefine the term ‘blight’ in order to declare eminent domain.
*Paging Tyler Nixon, paging Tyler Nixon! Please chime in! You’ve been far more involved than me.
It is very ironic that Minner’s statement said that it would have cost the taxpayers too much money.
In other words Minner’s statement says that it would cost the government too much money if it were forced to actually buy the property.
RSmitty,
Where did I lose you?
Eminent domain = OK for public good
Revitalizing Wilmington to stop 100′s of murders = Public Good
On the other hand, taking a similarly situated auto shop in Bear to make way for retail shops is no longer for the public good.
Now, OBVIOUSLY, the city can’t just buy the land and do nothing with it. So, I don’t have a problem with putting up retail shops as long as city is taking the land to help take back the city from the philly-baltimore drug lords.
Disagree with me, if you want, but you I certainly believe my position is consistent.
bc
WTF ,you moron, do you think there will be a ‘trickle down’ effect from governments riding roughshod over citizens? I have lived in Wilmington for over 30 years and I have been active in the community. My observation: it’s all about money and politics….nothing more, nothing less. Do you really think ED will stop shootings? Get real. The only reliable way to change the populace is start at the bottom (infants, children) when people are raised to have hope they don’t act out in the most hostile of ways.
I know you, and others, will grunt when you read thisgrunt this but that is what Jesse Jackson has been saying: “Keep hope alive”. There is no hope when asshats like you want to run folks out of their homes and businesses so developers can get richer. Where do you proposed the evicted go? to the streets (homeless)? to relatives? to another state? or how about over to your house?????
Hang your head in shame if you won’t take them in and STFU on this subject.
The nerve of ‘bc’ (certainly his attitude is before Christ) to suppose he has any answers when his head is so FUHA!!!! I’d like to go on but I’m too ticked off!
I just reread the jod (jerk of the day).
bc, the renown city and social planner, says: ‘taking a similarly situated auto shop in Bear’ You jackass….that Wilmington based business (for decades) can not expect his clientel to move to freakin’ Bear. The businessperson would eccentially (sp) have to start a whole new customer base.
You, bc, must be on salary and on the breast of someone(s) (company) who worked hard enough to employ the likes of you. Building a business is one of the most difficult endeavors one can take on.
Keep your half-baked ideas and shallow thoughts to yourself when it comes to trying to ‘fix’ Wilmington.
Murders could be stopped the Chris Rock way: make each bullet cost a couple hundred dollars.