|
The largest used equipment inventory in the Mid-Atlantic is only a click away. Visit our website by clicking here or visit us at one of our 11 locations throughout MD, DE, VA and PA.
|
 |
AFBF files brief in property rights case
|
The largest used equipment inventory in the Mid-Atlantic is only a click away. Visit our website by clicking here or visit us at one of our 11 locations throughout MD, DE, VA and PA.
|
|
7.15.2007
(Editor’s Note: The following article ran in the June 25 issue of FBNews, the official newspaper of the American Farm Bureau Federation.)
TRENTON — The American Farm Bureau Federation earlier this month filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Court, saying that a government should not be allowed to condemn private property for “open space” preservation without going through a public and deliberative process.
In the Supreme Court case, MiPro v. Mount Laurel Township, the AFBF brief asks the court to consider a petition filed by homebuilders whose property was condemned.
The builders, MiPro Homes, obtained all necessary permits from the Mount Laurel Township (N.J.) planning committee.
The township later decided, however, that it did not want more homes because of the burden on local resources.
At the last minute the township decided to condemn the property for “open space” without going through the deliberative process required by the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in the Kelo eminent domain case.
In the Kelo decision, issued in June 2005, the court ruled that local governments can take private property and turn it over to commercial developers in the interest of economic development.
“Since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo, farmers have become vulnerable to the possibility of having their property taken for economic development and open space designations,” said American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman. “When property is taken like it was in the MiPro case — under false pretenses and without a public debate and comprehensive planning process — it flies in the face of the guidelines laid out by Kelo.”
The Builders League of South Jersey and other groups that joined MiPro Homes in asking the Supreme Court to consider the case are concerned that if the ruling is allowed to stand, it will have a harmful effect on development in New Jersey and a negative impact on families with school children and developers of projects considered politically undesirable.
The ruling also endangers agriculture because farmers’ and ranchers’ land frequently faces the threat of condemnation.
According to the AFBF brief, if allowed to stand, the actions of the township would “strip farmers of virtually the only protection they have left against unwarranted or ill-advised takings: the protection provided by public scrutiny and open debate.”
Responding to the Supreme Court’s Kelo ruling, more than 30 states have passed laws strengthening private property rights or curbing the use of eminent domain for economic development.
Congressional lawmakers have also taken on the issue, holding numerous hearings and introducing a number of bills during the 109th Congress and the current Congress.
Although eminent domain is largely a state issue, lawmakers are concerned that federal money could be used in a situation where the taking of private property is used to further economic development. Along those lines, President George W. Bush in June 2006 issued an executive order directing the attorney general to provide guidance for federal agencies in eminent domain land takings.
His order requires that eminent domain should not be used except in true public-use projects, especially not for advancement of economic interests of private parties.