Quote :

"Property Protection Bill Passed in N.C. Associated Press RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) - North Carolina government agencies would not be able to condemn private properties solely for the sake of economic developments under a measure that both General Assembly chambers approved unanimously Thursday. "With that bill, our property rights will be well protected," said Rep. Bruce Goforth, D-Buncombe, who sponsored the proposal. "It's extremely important to retain people's property rights." Some Senate Republicans criticized majority Democrats for a legislative maneuver that blocked any consideration of additional amendments to the bill. Sen. Neal Hunt and other Republicans wanted to change the bill into a constitutional amendment, giving even greater protection to land owners. "A judge can still overrule the law and allow property to be taken for public purpose," said Hunt, R-Wake. "That's a scary thing." Goforth, who originally co-sponsored a constitutional amendment for eminent domain, said that it really wasn't necessary. The latest proposal now goes to Gov. Mike Easley. A number of state governments have strengthened their eminent domain laws after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that government could take land for economic development, noting that economic development was in the public's interest. The court ruled that a Connecticut town could seize 15 waterfront households as the site for office buildings, a marina and a Pfizer research center. "That case opened a can of worms that everyone was concerned about," Goforth said. "But we should be OK now." While a few states have passed laws similar to the one considered Thursday, Michigan is the only one to change its Constitution."

i was very pleased to see this. that supreme court decision last year really troubled me. at least our state is doing something right. right?. . .

7/21/2006 8:33:47 AM

Glad to hear it.
I wish the article gave more details. "A judge can still overrule the law and allow property to be taken for public purpose" on what grounds? And for what public purpose? Surely the Wake representative wasn't hoping to stop siezures by public utilities and road construction?

7/21/2006 8:41:55 AM

I heard about this on NPR this morning. I can't remember what all was said but I came out of it thinking that it was a step in the right direction but it certainly came short of what I would consider adequate protection. I've looked for a decent news blurb on this to help jog my memory but I haven't found one yet.

7/21/2006 10:23:55 AM