Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> Talking points, continued <br /> Some opinions: <br /> • Supporters of the principal anti-eminent domain bill overstate the <br /> eminent domain "problem" in Minnesota in order to overreach with their <br /> "solution" <br /> • Municipal eminent domain in Minnesota is not "broken" and <br /> consequently does not need to be "fixed" <br /> • If the Legislature insists on creating a more restrictive eminent domain <br /> statute, a reasonable compromise would include: <br /> • Improving the public notice and appraisal processes <br /> • Eliminating eminent domain for job creation or tax base purposes <br /> • Creating a more descriptive definition of blight <br /> • Providing additional compensation for some business re- <br /> establishments <br /> • A sunset date for the new language in order to require a review of <br /> the impacts of restrictive language <br /> • Many cities do not use eminent domain for redevelopment activities. <br /> That is their choice. <br /> • Other cities have used eminent domain for redevelopment activities and <br /> that is, and should be, their choice. <br /> • As elected city officials, we should continue to have the freedom to <br /> make those choices because our voters hold us accountable for the <br /> decisions that we make. <br /> • Most importantly, the legislature should take the time to thoughtfully and <br /> fully discuss this critical issue before they vote on any eminent domain <br /> bill. <br /> • The eminent domain issue should be decided on fact, not fervor. <br /> Association of Metropolitan Municipalities and the League of Minnesota Cities <br /> 145 University Ave W., St.Paul,MN 55103-2044 <br /> AMM: (651)215-4000 LMC: (651)281-1200 <br />