Last session the state legislature had an opportunity to address the public’s concerns about eminent domain. Instead they banned soda from being sold in public schools. Ok, it was not simple, but eminent domain was a hot issue following the Supreme Court decision Kelo v. New London. It wasn’t that long ago that the Democrats released their legislative agenda, with eminent domain nowhere to be seen. So it’s a relief knowing that Governor Rell has chosen to take up the issue and move it to the front burner.
Today’s Courant explains:
Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Wednesday that she will ask the legislature to limit government seizures of private property by making it more difficult for development plans to win local approval.
Rell said she will make the request during her annual budget address Wednesday. She criticized lawmakers for failing to come up with a plan last year.
“It is time to send a clear message and put restrictions on the ability to take people’s property for economic development purposes,” Rell said in a statement. “I think both Democrats and Republicans would agree that the issue of property seizures has been put off for far too long and talked to death.”
Rell’s proposal would allow the seizure of private property after a municipality’s legislative body approves the measure in a two-thirds vote.
She also said she wants to require municipalities to determine that public benefits resulting from economic development outweigh private benefits and that the acquisition by eminent domain is “reasonably necessary” to achieve the objectives of the development plan.
Not so fast, says State Senator Andrew MacDonald-D Stamford, in response to Rell’s criticism that the legislature did nothing. “I understand imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and I’m flattered the governor has adopted wholesale our recommendations,” he said. “I hope she’ll put political muscle behind it.”
One hopes that the legislature will get past the “origination” wars and simply get behind the idea that no government should be able to seize the private property without some sort of plan that benefits the public good instead of the private developer’s profits. Bipartisan agreement surely can’t be that difficult.
