- ‘Gay Jeans’ that fade into rainbow-colored denim created
- Divided court strikes down big porn award
- Jimmy Carter: Don’t hurt Russian people with sanctions
- Oldest ex-MLB player dies in Cuba, 2 days shy of 103rd birthday
- ‘Top Gun’ for drones: Squadrons of carrier-based killers have Navy’s approval
- Bill Clinton to endorse Charlie Rangel for re-election
- Pfc. Bradley Manning is now Pfc. Chelsea Manning: Court says so
- Secret base U.S. special forces used to train Libyans now under terrorist control: report
- 9th suspect in N.C. kidnapping turns self in to FBI
- L.A. sheriff admits to testing flyover spy program without notifying residents
Virginia Democratic panel bucks voters on amendment
The Democratic Party of Virginia’s State Central Committee voted to oppose an eminent-domain measure that Democratic voters in the state support by a 20-point margin, and expected to pass overwhelmingly on the Nov. 6 ballot.
The General Assembly approved the amendment for voters’ consideration earlier this year. If it passes, the measure will add a state statute on property rights protection to the Virginia Constitution and entitle landowners whose property is taken to compensation from the government for at least as much as the property is worth.
Though it passed on a bipartisan vote in both the House of Delegates and the state Senate, the Democrats’ central committee argued that the amendment would “add to the complexity and expense of governmental entities seeking to utilize eminent domain for the benefit of taxpayers, even when property is taken for unquestioned public purposes.” (The measure also passed in 2011, but amendments to the state constitution must be approved twice by the legislature with an intervening election before being placed on the ballot.)
But the reason the expense will be higher is because landowners will be entitled to “fair compensation” — theoretically, more than the government otherwise would have provided, said Sen. Mark D. Obenshain, Harrisonburg Republican and Senate sponsor of the amendment.
“The burden — the loss associated with that — shouldn’t fall on the property owner,” Mr. Obenshain said.
“The last [reason] was, ‘We don’t like the attorney general and he likes this. Therefore it must be bad,’” Mr. Obenshain said. “It is too petty for them. It’s ridiculous.”
A poll last month from the liberal-leaning firm Public Policy Polling showed Virginia voters across the political spectrum support the amendment. Forty-three percent of likely voters said they planned to vote for it, compared to 19 percent who planned to vote against it and 38 percent who weren’t sure. Forty-two percent of Democrats planned to vote for it, compared to 22 percent who planned to vote against it and 36 percent who weren’t sure.
According to the resolution approved last month, Democratic Party brass also are opposed because the amendment is “duplicative” of requirements in an existing state statute, and will codify a prohibition on using eminent domain “to advance private enterprise, job creation, tax revenue generation, or economic development.”
“The concern among Democrats is that it could add a lot of costs to economic projects — infrastructure projects and the like, economic development — and how costly it could be,” said a party official who was granted anonymity in order to speak freely about internal strategy. “It’s very restrictive as to what’s allowed.”
One concern brought forward by localities during General Assembly debate was that a section entitling affected landowners to “lost profits and lost access” was not defined specifically enough and could lead to costly litigation and attempts to grab far more money than property is actually worth.
The General Assembly bill lays out more specifics. For example, one provision requires the owner of a business or farm to prove the economic loss was directly caused by the taking of the property and that it cannot be “reasonably prevented” by relocating the farm or business.
This proposal doesn’t, however, prevent tinkering by future legislatures, said Bernard Caton, Alexandria’s director of legislative affairs.
“The potential is there under the constitutional amendment because it gives the General Assembly such latitude in defining those issues,” Mr. Caton said. He did, however, applaud the legislature for taking the “responsible” move to clarify the language.
Though the issue has been overshadowed somewhat by the presidential, U.S. Senate and congressional races in the state, it has been causing controversy for months. Goochland County, just outside Richmond, withdrew from both the Virginia Association of Counties and the National Association of Counties in August, citing the state group’s opposition to the amendment.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
David Sherfinski covers politics for The Washington Times. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Supreme Court pushes consideration of N.J. gun case to April 25
- Supreme Court weighs appeal to concealed-carry gun laws
- Michael Bloomberg charts $50M challenge to NRA: 'Got to make them afraid'
- McAuliffe's PAC off to fast start, with $254,000 raised in two weeks
- Virginia Republican Bob Marshall stands by remarks that raise eyebrows
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
By Andrew P. Napolitano
Obama's veil of secrecy is pierced
- 'Top Gun' for drones: Squadrons of carrier-based killers have Navy's approval
- Pentagon plans to replace flight crews with 'full-time' robots
- America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or republic, university study finds
- Obama avoids 'red line' for China; prepared to impose tougher sanctions on Russia
- Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy hailed as patriot, ripped as lawless deadbeat
- Kansas will nullify local regulation of guns
- Tactical advantage: Russian military shows off impressive new gear
- Brain surgery victim struggles with Obamacare: 'It's scary'
- Protesters, police clash in Philippines ahead of Obama visit
- CARSON: When government looks more like foe than friend
Top 10 handguns in the U.S.
Celebrity deaths in 2014