House OKs curbs on eminent domain
By Philip Ewing
POST-DISPATCH SPRINGFIELD BUREAU
Thursday, Apr. 20 2006

SPRINGFIELD, ILL.

Less than a year after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain sparked
national debate, Illinois legislators are considering a bill that would put
stringent limits on when and how governments could take private land.

Property rights groups are ready to celebrate.

But opponents say the measure, which would apply to municipalities and
government bodies such as the Southwestern Illinois Development Authority in
Collinsville, could halt or slow projects ranging from brownfield renewal to
retail expansions.

Passed 85-6 Wednesday by the House, the 450-page bill would require that any
government wanting to take private property for private development - as
opposed to public uses such as roads or schools - would have to meet a higher
legal standard before it could begin seizure proceedings.

Under the bill, governments would have to show by clear and convincing evidence
that they were taking property for the public good - a much tougher standard
than now applies, lawyers say.

Supporters and opponents agree that the new standard would prolong eminent
domain court cases; supporters say that will help protect property owners, but
opponents say the new legal hurdle could slow or stop economic revitalization.

The bill now goes to the Senate, which has already passed a version of it. From
there it would go to Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who is expected to sign it into law.

Rep. John Bradley, D-Marion and a sponsor, said the proposed new restrictions
would prevent abuse of eminent domain and clarify a simple democratic principle
that laws should protect people, not governments.

"It's a philosophical policy decision we have to make," he said. "Where does
the pendulum land? In my view, it lands with the private property owner."

Opponents respond that the new strictures would slow economic development in
downtrodden areas. They also worry that the rules are being made for the wrong
reasons: People are so afraid of government swooping in and seizing homes that
they're reacting with their guts, not their heads.

"The political frenzy has not been built by informed masses," said Roger
Huebner, general counsel for the Illinois Municipal League. "The mayors,
aldermen and the city councils we represent, the last thing they want is to
take people's property against their will. Unfortunately, they find themselves
responding to a characterization that they're the big bad wolf."

Eminent domain has been an issue in southwestern Illinois for years: The
Lincoln Place shopping center in Fairview Heights and the Parsons Place housing
complex in East St. Louis are two examples of development built after the
Southwestern Illinois Development Authority used its eminent domain powers.

The authority set off controversy in 1998 when it took 148 privately owned
acres in Madison to create a parking lot for Gateway International Raceway. The
state Supreme Court eventually ruled that the agency had misused its authority
and ordered the land be returned to its original owner. That case figured
prominently in lawmakers' discussions about the current eminent domain proposal.

But supporters and detractors of the legislative proposal agree that the recent
battle started a thousand miles away, with a U.S. Supreme Court case called
Kelo v. New London, handed down in June.

Since then, there has been a sharp national debate over eminent domain. In
Congress, lawmakers have introduced dozens of bills and even amendments to the
U.S. Constitution that would impose strong federal guidelines for taking
private property. Legislatures in more than 30 states, including Illinois and
Missouri, have introduced or passed stricter eminent domain laws.

What got lost in all this, some say, is that the Kelo ruling wasn't even
applicable to many states, including Illinois. It concerned Connecticut law,
Huebner said, while Illinois and its municipalities already had much stronger
protections against the use of eminent domain. He and others blamed reporters
and pundits for getting the details wrong and scaring people.

In the Kelo case, the city of New London, Conn., wanted to use its eminent
domain power to raze a blue-collar neighborhood to put up an office park. The
landowners sued, contending that their property could be taken only for a
taxpayer-financed project such as a road. But the Supreme Court said that
because it would improve the city's overall economy, private development could
go forward.

The bill is SB3086.

philip.ewing@post-dispatch.com 217-782-4912