Jun
23
Eminent Domain in Montana
June 23, 2005 | 5 Comments
In the face of today’s disappointing Supreme Court decision on Kelo vs. New London, a friend of mine posed a very interesting question. He asked, “What would a good Constitutional amendment on this issue look like?”
My reply was based on research of Montana’s state laws, so I thought it might be of interest to Big Sky Bloggers.
I’m thinking it has to be at the state constitutional level. In fact, one of the things the SCOTUS cited in the syllabus was the fact that Connecticut had a state statute that specifically authorized the use of eminent domain to promote economic development.
It only took me a moment to locate the section on eminent domain in Montana’s Constution:
Article II, Section 29: Eminent domain. Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation to the full extent of the loss having been first made to or paid into court for the owner. In the event of litigation, just compensation shall include necessary expenses of litigation to be awarded by the court when the private property owner prevails.
The big important section of Montana Code Annotated dealing with all this is the Eminent Domain section in Title 70, Chapter 30. The public uses for eminent domain are therein specfcally enumerated. Note the huuuuuuuge number of cross-references there. For every use (athletic stadiums, cemeteries, flood control, etc.) there’s a corresponding section that then specifically lays out what has to be done to use ED for each issue.
But to get to the nasty stuff, you have to look at 70-30-103: What property may be taken. (1) The property that may be taken under this chapter includes: (a) all real property belonging to any person… and (2) All classes of private property not enumerated may be taken for public use when the taking is authorized by law. But then they clarify that further in 70-30-110:
70-30-111. Facts necessary to be found before condemnation. Before property can be taken, the condemnor shall show by a preponderance of the evidence that the public interest requires the taking based on the following findings:
(1) the use to which the property is to be applied is a use authorized by law;
(2) the taking is necessary to the use;
(3) if already being used for a public use, that the public use for which the property is proposed to be used is a more necessary public use;
(4) an effort to obtain the property interest sought to be taken was made by submission of a written offer and the offer was rejected.
There are a couple of additional references to ED throughout the MCA, mostly in Title 60, Chapter 4 on Highways – but here, those references are to restrictions. For example, we have Title 60, Chapter 4, Part 103, purposes for which property may be acquired for highways, in which it states that:
The acquisition of lands or other property or any interest therein for present or future highway purposes includes but is not limited to any of the following purposes:
(1) for rights-of-way, including those necessary for highways within cities;
(2) for exchanging lands or other property or any interest therein for other such lands or interests for rights-of-way or other authorized purposes. The right of eminent domain shall not be exercised for this purpose.
(3) for …..
Frankly, all of this isn’t nearly as restrictive as I would like it to be. And that’s in a state like Montana. The place to start here would be in 70-30-103. You’d either have to cull that list, or go to each cross-referenced section of code and limit use of eminent domain in that section (like they did with highways). Our legislature only meets once every other year for a few months. I can’t imagine how long it would take to make all the necessary changes in the laws there. This is why I had hoped that the SCOTUS would define the takings clause more narrowly than they did – I just think “economic development” is too vague and broad to be the limiting factor in eminent domain cases. And no, I don’t think you have to be a lawyer or a judge to figure that out – our laws and Constitution are “for the people, by the people.” We really are smart enough to “get” this concept. It has been pointed out that in his tiebreaker concurrence, Kennedy left a loophole in there about not being able to speculate on future cases of the same nature. The idea being that he was indirectly warning cities not to run with the decision, because the court might be inclined to hear other similar cases. But if you ask me, that’s a wussy-assed pansy way of saying “hey, I didn’t COMPLETELY agree with this!”
Back to the question at hand. Starting on a broader level…
Wiki says:
The Supreme Court has held that the federal government and each state has eminent domain, that is to say, the power to take private property. The Fifth Amendment provides that private property may only be taken for public use if just compensation is paid. The provision did not, originally, directly apply to the states. Like all clauses except the grand jury clause, use is up to determination by the courts, which have, however, shown much deference to the determinations of Congress and state legislatures. The property need not actually be used by the public; rather, it must be used or disposed of in such a manner as to benefit the public welfare or public interest. One exception that restrains the federal government is that the property must be used in exercise of the government’s enumerated powers.
To properly begin speculating on how to phrase a State Constitutional Amendment, I think maybe my emphasized sentence there is the starting place. I don’t know enough about how that’s applied to the fedgov. Perhaps similar restrictions can be placed on the State? But I need a better understanding of enumeration in that respect.
Wiki goes on to talk about what’s done in other countries:
In many European nations, the European Convention on Human Rights provides protection from appropriation of private property by the state. Article 8 of the Convention provides that “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence” and prohibits interference with this right by the state, unless the interference is in accordance with law and necessary in the interests of national security, public safety, economic well-being of the country, prevention of disorder or crime, protection of health or morals, or protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This right is expanded by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention, which states that “Every natural person or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.” Again, this is subject to exceptions where state deprivation of private possessions is in the public interest, is in accordance with law, and, in particular, to secure payment of taxes.
And even that (emphasized) can be very broadly interpreted. I just don’t even know where to start. Alternatively, you could try to get a federal Constitutional Amendment to more narrowly define the situations under which eminent domain can be used. But again, where to begin? If you got thoughts on the matter, I want to hear them.
By the way, if you want to read the actual opinions, concurrence, and dissents on Kelo, they are here.
Disclosure: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv.
Comments
5 Comments so far
Latest Montana News- Helena students "band" together for music festivalIn the Helena valley, music brought three middle schools together in harmony this week. The bands from Helena Middle School, C.R. Anderson, and East Valley Middle School joined forces for a music festival, with the 8th-grade students split up into two groups to practice sets of four pieces.Triona Matheson, a percussionist, said, "We all play together as […]
- Montana communities not happy with state funds freezeAccording to the Montana Department of Commerce, 50 cities and counties across the state will not be getting money that was promised them.During the last legislative session, Congress approved spending $20-million dollars on rural projects. The state has spent $16.5-million of that, but is holding the remaining 10% due to the budget situation.State budget di […]
- Montana water committee addressess federal proposalMontana's Water Policy Interim Committee is speaking out about the federal government's jurisdiction over Montana's water and has sent a letter to Montana's U.S. Congressional delegation.State law says Montana's water resources are state property and should be used for the people of Montana. Language before the U.S. Congress in the C […]
- Belgrade resident Wolery sentenced for attempted sexual exploitation of teenThe United States Attorney’s Office announced on Thursday that Rayne Allen Wolery, a 30-year-old resident of Belgrade, was sentenced in a Helena courtroom to a term of 180 months in prison, supervised release for 10 years, and forfeiture of computer and cell phone. Wolery was sentenced in connection with his guilty plea to attempted sexual exploitation of ch […]
- Montana unemployment rate ticks upThe state's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate increased slightly by 0.1 points in January to 6.8% while the national unemployment rate fell from 10% to 9.7% in January."The U.S. economy showed positive Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth in the second half of 2009, but employment growth lags behind a recovery in GDP," says Labor Commission […]
- St. Peters, county health agency team up to offer free mammogramsThe National Cancer Institute estimates about 40,000 American women died of breast cancer last year. Saint Peters Hospital in Helena is teaming up with the Lewis & Clark County Health Department to help with early detection by offering free mammograms for uninsured and low-income women.Saint Peters recommends women start getting an annual mammogram when […]
- Sarah Palin returning to Montana for teen fundraiserFormer Alaska Governor and vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin is making another trip to the Treasure State.Palin will be in Missoula on September 12 for a fundraiser for an organization called Teen Challenge;the faith-based organization helps teens deal with life's problems by teaching them Christian values.Money raised during the event will go towar […]
- Custodian found dead in Butte schoolThe body of a 49-year-old man was found at Kennedy Elementary School in Butte on Saturday.The man worked as a custodian for the school district, Butte-Silver Bow Sheriff John Walsh said.The body was found in a classroom by a teacher Saturday morning.The man was identified as Doug Weisenberger.The body was taken to the state crime lab for an autopsy, but it a […]
- Superintendent's gun fires during class in Reed PointReed Point High School students got quite a shock when a history lesson about a gun misfired on Friday. The gun actually went off in the middle of class and the bullet went through a wall. No one was hurt.Superintendent Dwain Haggard says he was teaching a history lesson and was showing off his .50-caliber Hawkens, an antique replica muzzleloader, when the g […]
- Helena students "band" together for music festival
[...] and Eminent Domain There’s a terrific analysis of current Montana law at Big Sky blog. My hat’s off to you for doing the research. Now go read it! This ent [...]
Souter home in imminent threat from Eminent Domain
Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hot…
Shame on the Supreme Court, of course, but the real culprits here are the individual legislators in Connecticut that passed this law in the first place. The Supreme Court simply confirmed that the Connecticut law is constitutional, but without the Connecticut legislators, we wouldn’t have this problem in the first place.
I’ve placed a call to arms on my blog describing my plan to hold these legislators individually accountable. How can we call ourselves patriotic Americans if we fail to end the career of every single Connecticut legislator who supported this law by having them voted out of office? At the very least we can show the children of these legislators, via the ensuing publicity, that they should be ashamed of their parents. While our troops are overseas fighting for freedom, these legislators sit in their air conditioned offices passing laws that take those freedoms away! They should be held accountable, and they should be banned from public office via a civically-minded electorate.
The first step is finding the names of the legislators who supported this law (especially the prominent ones, but also the not so prominent ones), and I’m hoping our good friends from Connecticut will be able to do this (seeing as this happened in their own backyard).
The Supreme Court’s decision is way out of line. Unthoughtful/unthinking Boars or Commissions could ignore property rights. Truly not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article Eminent Domain in Montana, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.