08-22-2007 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

persuasive evidence that an eminent domain action has been taken for a public use (or public purpose — the Court spent considerable oral argument time considering whether there was any meaningful distinction between these terms). It may be assumed that an eminent domain action that is not supported by such a planning process may be in danger of running afoul of the public use requirement. That is. the taking may be found to have been made for a private purpose — a power that the sovereign does not have. What's the problem then? Well of course. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's dissent got wide public play, focusing on her statement that "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party ... ". Property rights organizations and all manner of real estate industry interests fired up the campaign to reform the unbridled use of eminent domain, heading off the looming plans of government to gobble up of private homes all over the place. Inevitably, the debate at state legislatures became one of "how much eminent domain reform are we going to adopt" Within a month, eleven states already had either pending legislation or public ballot initiatives prepared to counter the impacts of the Kelo decision, and nearly forty states have now adopted related legislation. What Would Minnesota Do? In St. Paul, the Minnesota legislature swung into action. Having to wait for six months after Kelo was obviously frustrating, as bills to address eminent domain began floating around the Statehouse early and often. Fortunately there were some cool heads around, however, and as often happens, strange bedfellows began to emerge. The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) lobbied on behalf of their members, naturally, supporting the Kelo decision, and emphasizing both its importance to municipal government planning as well as the restraint that cities in Minnesota have historically applied to this issue. They were joined by members of the development industry, not often an ally of the municipal groups at the legislature when it comes to land use regulation. The National Association of Industrial and Office Parks (NAIOP) came out publicly in support of Minnesota's previous standards for eminent domain review. Very narrowly drawn definitions of blight and environmental contamination were viewed as being severely detrimental to redevelopment efforts, a target for reformers that appeared to go far beyond the perceived ramifications of Kelo. What came out of this past session of the legislature was Chapter 214; Laws of Minnesota 2006. The new legislation equated "public use" and "public purpose ", and established a new definition consisting of three categories: 1) possession, occupation, ownership, and enjoyment of the land by the general public or public agencies; 2) creation or functioning of a "public service corporation "; 3) mitigation of a blighted area, remediation of an environmentally contaminated area, reduction of abandoned property, or removal of a public nuisance. 7