Senate approves eminent domain limits

The bill’s language had sparked heated debate among Missouri lawmakers.
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 | 12:00 a.m. CDT; updated 3:10 p.m. CDT, Wednesday, July 16, 2008

JEFFERSON CITY — In a bill stacked with a long list of alterations, the choice of a single word was critical in determining the strength of a bill to change eminent domain regulations.

“Is it ‘solely’ economic development that we are repugnant to as a state?” asked Sen. Jason Crowell, R-Cape Girardeau. “Or is it ‘predominantly’ economic development purposes that we’re repugnant to? Or is it ‘one scintilla’ of economic development purposes?”

In the end, despite boisterous objections from those who thought banning the use of eminent domain “solely” for economic purposes would not go far enough in curbing excesses, the Missouri Senate agreed to an amendment Tuesday to place that language into the broader eminent domain bill.

MU law professor Dale Whitman said stripping the word “predominantly” out of the legislation spared the amendment from containing “terribly bad language.”

“‘Solely’ is a workable test that the court can apply consistently,” Whitman said.

Whitman criticized the insertion of the word “predominantly” last week, charging that it would spark litigation and judicial confusion. But proponents of tighter safeguards to the use of eminent domain charged “solely” would not be enough to stop developers from abusing eminent domain.

Crowell, who chaired a Senate committee that inserted “predominantly” into the bill last week, called the terminology “worthless” on the Senate floor. Sen. Joan Bray, D-St. Louis County, echoed Crowell’s sentiments, and said placing “solely” into the bill was “dancing around the issue.”

“As long as we’re not defining blight and saying ‘you can’t do this solely,’ then, you know, you leave huge openings for just a little bit of blight,” Bray said. “And blight can mean anything.”

Besides the restrictions for economic development purposes, the bill states that any condemning authority that seizes a dwelling must pay 125 percent of fair market value to the owner of the property.

The legislation also leaves in the “heritage value” measure, which would give a property owners more money if the home or business he has owned has remained in the hands of a single family for over 50 years.

While Whitman said he disapproves of the heritage value provision of the legislation, he said giving property owners 125 percent of the fair market value for property takes into account moving expenses, such as a change in a school district or a longer commute.

“It is a reasonable way to compensate (property owners) for intangible loses,” Whitman said.

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.