With all the proposed redevelopment in Norwalk, interested parties may want to take a gander at the newly minted eminent domain bill that the house just passed Saturday night. And here’s some breaking news, the entire Norwalk delegation voted in favor of the bill (even Bruce Morris). The bill now awaits Governor Rell to sign it, which should be likely considering she has been outspoken about the need for eminent domain reform.

The Courant provides the highlights:

“We have learned the lesson of Kelo, we have reflected on it and we know we must make it much less likely for this to happen again,” Feltman said. “On the other hand, we know there may be some instances where the rights of some need to yield to the needs of others.”

The bill approved Saturday prohibits municipalities from taking property by eminent domain just to increase local tax rolls, such as replacing an existing Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, Lawlor said.

It also incorporates a number of other checks and balances that Feltman said makes municipal seizures of property by eminent domain more transparent and accountable. The proposal also:

Requires town legislative bodies (elected city councils and boards of selectmen) - rather than appointed members of redevelopment agencies - to hold a public hearing on the properties slated for seizure. They also must approve a request for seizure by a two-thirds margin to act.

Requires the property owner whose land is seized to be compensated at 125 percent of the property’s fair market value.

Gives the owners of property slated for seizure the right of first refusal to buy it back if it is not used for its intended purpose or another public purpose.

Expands research and analysis that agencies must include in justifying an eminent domain seizure.

But even with all those provisions, some House members said it didn’t go far enough.

“The bottom line is even after the passage of this bill, my home, your home, your grandparents’ home, could very well be taken by eminent domain,” said state Rep. Penny Bacchiochi, R-Somers.

Urban legislators have been reluctant to foreclose on the eminent domain option, which is often crucial to urban renewal efforts. Lawmakers from suburban towns have fought vigorously against the option, believing that every person’s home is “their castle.”

A proposed amendment that would have extended greater protections to private, owner-occupied dwelling in eminent domain cases failed Saturday night by a narrow vote of 67-72.

The extra protection amendment was voted against by Perone and Morris and voted for by Cafero, Ryan and Boucher.

source: The Courant, Lawmakers Tackle Controversies: Legislation Restricts Seizure Of Private Property, By COLIN POITRAS, Courant Staff Writer, June 3, 2007