|
Piccola's Eminent Domain Measure the Focus of Public Hearing
HARRISBURG -- Senate
Majority Whip Jeff Piccola (R-15) testified today before a hearing of the Senate
Majority Policy Committee on Senate Bill 881, also known as the “Property Rights
Protection Act,” his legislation that restricts eminent domain property seizures
and restores the rights of Pennsylvanians to protect their property from abuse.
Earlier this year, the
United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of Kelo v. City of New London that
governments can seize property to make room for private development projects
that promise to boost the local economy. Acting on the court's decision, which
said states can provide greater protection to property owners than the court is
willing to provide, Piccola unveiled Senate Bill 881.
“This bill is designed to
retain the tools to revitalize blighted neighborhoods, while preventing cities
from using eminent domain to take property for the benefit of other private
parties. The Property Rights Protection Act would not only curb the use of
eminent domain for private businesses here in Pennsylvania, but also reform the
definition of blight to eliminate its abuse,” Piccola said.
“We cannot allow our local
governments to seize established, unblighted property and contend they're
creating
bigger tax bases and more
jobs to help the local economy. This is not public use -- it's an
unconstitutional abuse,” he added.
“My legislation will provide
greater protections to property owners from governmental authorities who would
seek to abuse the use of their eminent domain powers. In recent years, these
powers have been expanded to the detriment of property owners. That's why we
need protections in place -- protections that will go a long way towards
ensuring that this governmental power is used sparingly,” said Piccola.
Under the Property Rights
Protection Act, the use of eminent domain to take private property in order to
use it for private commercial purposes is prohibited. The measure also
restricts “blight” to its more traditional definition relating to matters of
health, safety, abandonment, and severe tax delinquency of unoccupied property.
“The court's decision
shocked the conscience of the nation and the residents of our Commonwealth. The
idea that one citizen's private property could be taken at any time by the
government and turned over to another private citizen for nongovernmental
purposes is simply outrageous,” Piccola added.
“Property rights are
fundamental to our country and the spirit of our constitution. This ruling
could adversely affect these rights if we don't take the opportunity to enact
laws now that give more protection to both homeowners and job providers in
Pennsylvania,” he said.
TESTIMONY:
SENATE MAJORITY WHIP JEFF
PICCOLA
Eminent Domain Hearing
Senate Majority Policy
Committee
October 25, 2005
Good morning.
In the case of Kelo v. New
London, a closely divided U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in the area
of eminent domain that shocked the conscience of the nation and the citizens of
our Commonwealth.
The idea that one citizen’s
private property could be taken by the government and turned over to another
private citizen for nongovernmental purposes is simply outrageous!
As someone whose 83 year old
mother still resides in the home my father helped design and build 57 years ago,
I know the heartfelt feeling one can attach to a home. I do not see the Court’s
decision as merely a mistaken application of Constitutional law. I view it as
an attack on the rights of individuals to be protected from out-of-control and
activist courts.
But all is not lost. There
was, however, one positive aspect of the Supreme Court ruling: The majority
opinion stated that Congress and state legislatures could provide property
owners with greater protection than the Supreme Court is willing to offer under
the U.S. Constitution.
In fact, Justice Stevens, the
author of the Kelo majority opinion, recently stated publicly that if he was a
state legislator he would vote to provide property owners with greater
protection.
Well, Justice Stevens is not a
legislator, but we are, and we can do something to protect Pennsylvanians’
property rights. I’ve introduced the Property Rights Protection Act, S.B. 881,
along with 26 co-sponsors, to do just that: provide greater protection to
property owners from governmental authorities who would seek to abuse the use of
their eminent domain powers.
In a nutshell, S.B. 881
provides several important protections. First, it prohibits, with minor
exceptions, the use of the power of eminent domain to take private property in
order to use it for private commercial purposes. In other words, eminent domain
cannot be used for economic development without a finding of blight.
Further, it reforms and
tightens the definition of blight that can be used in any condemnation in the
Commonwealth. In particular, it reforms the definition of blight in the current
Urban Redevelopment Law that allows a declaration of blight for reasons as vague
and subjective as [quote] economically or socially undesirable land uses [end
quote].
Under the Property Rights
Protection Act, blight will be restricted to its more traditional definition of
matters of health, safety, abandonment, and severe tax delinquency of unoccupied
property.
I believe the reforms contained
in S.B. 881 will go a long way in preventing the type of situation that occurred
in the Kelo case.
I praise this committee for
having the wisdom to examine this important issue.
Thank you.
 
Piccola
Piccola & Conti
Sen.
Jeff Piccola speaks about
eminent domain issues
at an Oct. 25 hearing by the
Senate Majority Policy Committee.
|
