| Virginia Fact Sheets
Eminent Domain
VFBF Position
We support enacting a Constitutional amendment paralleling the eminent domain laws enacted in 2007 to close loopholes in Virginia’s law that are a result of the Kelo decision.
Background
In Kelo v. The City of New London, Connecticut decision, the “Public Use” clause was replaced with a broader “Public Purpose” clause. Therefore, land could be condemned for economic benefit by a governmental entity and transferred to a nongovernmental entity. Virginia’s statutory law was amended in 2007 to clarify and strictly define public use and/or public necessity and not broaden its meaning as in the authority given in Connecticut.
Virginia’s legislative solution specifically provided that property can only be taken when the public interest dominates the private gain. The primary purpose of the taking will not be for private financial gain, private benefit, an increase in tax base or revenues, or an increase in employment. It also provided that a property owner may challenge that a taking is a pretext for an unauthorized use. The legislation protected well kept property that is in a redevelopment area from being taken for blight by placing new limitations upon the Housing Authorities ability to condemn for blight.
Similar language needs to be developed for a Constitutional amendment. If the Constitutional amendment resolution is passed by the General Assembly in 2009, an identical resolution would need to be passed by the 2010 General Assembly in order to be ratified for inclusion in Virginia’s Constitution by Virginia voters on the November 2010 ballot. If this is not achieved, such a measure would not be able to be considered by Virginia voters until 2012.
Reasons for Position
- Constitutional protection of property rights prevents a weakening of statutory provisions.
- Virginia farmers and landowners fully support including those provisions in Virginia’s Constitution. This can not wait to provide long term protections for property rights.
| 
