3 eminent domain hearings in concord Jan 11

[Dave Ridley]

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11

JUDICIARY, Room 208, LOB

10:00 a.m.        HB 1254, relative to eminent domain.

11:15 a.m.        HB 1129, relative to eminent domain.

1:00 p.m.         CACR 40, relating to taking of property.  Providing that  property may not be taken for a public purpose, but only for a public use.


I have no idea if the first two bills are good or bad; i assume the third must be good but not sure.

[Pat McCotter]

HB1254
This bill inserts a definition of ?public use? in the laws governing eminent domain, changes ?public purpose? to ?public use? in certain other laws, and establishes a committee to study issues of eminent domain.

HB1129
This bill adds a definition of public use to the statutes regarding eminent domain. The bill also asserts that private property shall not be taken through eminent domain if the purpose of the taking is for economic development.

[FTL_Ian]

As I said in another thread, I think the NHFree.com crew should take a trip to the State House!   

[Dave Ridley]

I checked with a state rep on this and he says the stuff listed is up for hearing...
here is where it's listed, and yes it was ambiguous as to whether these were hearings or work sessions, but according to my rep contact the stuff below jan. 4 is mostly hearings where we can testify.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/hcaljourns/calendars/2006/houcal2006_3.html

[KBCraig]

CACR 30 editorial in the Union Leader:

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Protecting+property%3a+Amendment+needed&articleId=f6cca83e-934a-41b5-b7f8-b9c91f45f14f

Protecting property: Amendment needed

SINCE LAST year's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, a person's property has lost the protection once provided by the Fifth Amendment. It is up to the states to restore that protection, and a mere statute is not enough. A constitutional amendment is needed.

On Wednesday the New Hampshire House of Representatives will vote on CACR 30, which would amend the state constitution to prevent the taking of private property "for private use or economic development." The House ought to pass it unanimously.

The Founding Fathers did not trust elected officials to keep their hands off of citizens' property. They thought it so important to shield property from the greedy hand of government that they amended the Constitution to do it. In their wisdom, they wrote that private property could be taken only for "public use." The Kelo decision cracked that shield by changing "public use" to "public purpose," a very different and much weaker standard.

New Hampshire legislators can begin righting the wrong done by the Supreme Court by passing CACR 30, which states unequivocally, "The power of eminent domain shall not be used to transfer ownership of real property for private use or economic development."

Some say that Kelo can be fought with a statute. But private property is a fundamental building block of our society. It deserves to be hidden behind stronger defenses. It deserves constitutional protection.