Posted: 11/4/2012 5:12:24 AM EDT
|
ETA- Simplified Title
Often these amendments are written in such a way that a turd is appealing, so please forgive my skepticism, but here are the amendment revisions all Virgininians can vote on next week. Your thoughts are appreciated. Voter Issue I Emiment Domain Amendment Current Constitution and Background: Article I, Section 11 of the current Constitution prohibits the taking or damaging of private property for public uses without just compensation. The power to take private property for public uses is known as the power of eminent domain. If a private property owner and the entity acquiring property for a public use cannot agree on the sale of the property, the property may be taken by eminent domain and the amount of just compensation is decided in a court proceeding. Revision: Shall Section 11 of Article I (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of Virginia be amended (i) to require that eminent domain only be exercised where the property taken or damaged is for public use and, except for utilities or the elimination of a public nuisance, not where the primary use is for private gain, private benefit, private enterprise, increasing jobs, increasing tax revenue, or economic development; (ii) to define what is included in just compensation for such taking or damaging of property; and (iii) to prohibit the taking or damaging of more private property than is necessary for the public use? So public nuisance would be added as a valid reason to confisciate land and utilities gain authority. They've made this revision sound great to landowners, but it seems like we become more vulnerable. Voter Issue II Legislative Sessions Legislation Brochure Main Point(verbatim from brochure): The Constitution now requires that the veto session must begin on the sixth Wednesday following the end of each session. The veto session usually lasts for only one day and cannot last more than ten days. Proposed Amendment The only change to Section 6 of Article IV, proposed by this amendment will allow the General Assembly to delay the start of the veto session for up to one week. Why would we give the General Assembly more time to delay things? There's much more reading material in the links. All opinions are welcome. |
|
Quoted:
Have they defined public nuisance? The rationale on the 2nd one is that the delay will allow the General Assembly to delay in the event of a religious holiday. Don't know about public nuisance, perhaps a law person will contribute. ETA: I took an env. law class yrs ago and recall public nuisance being a universal legal definition that addresses the health, morals, safety, comfort, convenience, or welfare of a community. A problem may reside with who is interpreting this broad application. Separation of church and state. |
|
Right now they can try and take land under "public use" which is quite open to interpretation. Well the politicians would argue that a new development where a farm once stood is for the public good because it makes places for people to live and generate tax revenue. The same could be said for a commercial development.
At least this more narrowly defines what a "public use" is. What I don't like is the utilities clause. I think they put this in their to take land up in loudoun county to expand the power grid. What I do like is the public nuisance exception. This could mean a bawdy house, (think flop house filled with druggies,drunks prostitutes, illegal boarding house with 50 people living in a 3 bedroom house) or more importantly a METH lab house. These places are bad news and are essentially toxic waste sites and need to be bulldozed, this would provide a mechanism to do that. Take the good with the bad, I already voted and voted for all the Rs and only voted yes for this. JMHO. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I will not give the state more power to take property. Period. Umm, they already have it... this makes it harder Maybe it is the cold meds talking, they want to add "public nuisance" as a reason to exercise eminent domain, no? "Public Nuisance" could easily be interpreted to be within the current powers... they do carve out an exception that would allow property taken to address a public nuisance to be handed over to a third party for other than public use (e.g. a private developer)... on the whole I see the change as setting the bar higher to justify a taking, by limiting what they can call a public use (which is not limited now). |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I will not give the state more power to take property. Period. Umm, they already have it... this makes it harder Maybe it is the cold meds talking, they want to add "public nuisance" as a reason to exercise eminent domain, no? "Public Nuisance" could easily be interpreted to be within the current powers... they do carve out an exception that would allow property taken to address a public nuisance to be handed over to a third party for other than public use (e.g. a private developer)... on the whole I see the change as setting the bar higher to justify a taking, by limiting what they can call a public use (which is not limited now). I'm not aware of Public Nuisance being used as an attempt to acquire property, but certainly destroy nuisance at owner cost. This revision gives exceptions for utilities and public nuisance to take land. It goes on to talk about all kinds of filler and no further metions of these exceptions. Unless someone could demonstrate how this revision helps land owners I think they are trying to pull one over on us. It has the appearance of restricting emmiment domain, but the exceptions actually give power to whoever is claiming public nuisance and it empowers the utility. |
|
arguments against the first one is that it would practically eliminate things like the Hot Lanes on 495 and the Dulles Toll Road, since they are operated by a private company. But you know...too bad.
I don't agree with the second one passing, there's no reason to give these people more time to do their jobs. |