U.S. Rep. Chris Smith (R-Hamilton) stood up for individual private property rights by voting for the Private Property Rights Protection Act legislation narrowing Eminent Domain authority in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kelo v. City of New London. The bill, which was passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 376-38, would prohibit states and local communities that receive Federal economic development funds from using their eminent domain power to seize private property that is subsequently used for economic development purposes. 

    “The Kelo decision doesn’t just hit home, it literally takes your home,” said Smith, who earlier in the day participated in a press conference in support of the bill. “This misguided decision ignored the desire of the Framers of the Constitution to protect individuals, specifically those who, through property ownership, could create a better future – which is the origin of the American dream.”

    The bill also prohibits the federal government from using its eminent domain power for such purposes. In addition, states and locales will have a clear opportunity to rectify any violation before losing federal economic development funding by either returning or replacing property taken improperly. 

    “The Private Property Rights Protection Act that we passed today eliminates federal funding for economic development to municipal governments that misuse eminent domain,” said Smith. “This is a victory for all Americans, particularly the poor and middle class, whom the Kelo decision placed in the crosshairs of greedy governments and corporate greed.” 

    There are times and circumstances that for public need, eminent domain may be justified. Over the last century, eminent domain has been used by government to secure land on which to build roads, dig sewers, erect power lines or protect the environment. Although the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment clearly states that, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,” in this case the Supreme Court handed down a ruling that allows the desire of local government to increase its tax base to trump the rights of private property owners.

    “This is a frightening example of the Supreme Court legislating rather than interpreting the law and emphasizes the importance of having nominees for the bench who practice judicial restraint,” said Smith. “As confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court move closer, I am encouraged that Judge Samuel Alito, President Bush’s nominee, has a record that reflects a commitment to property rights and limited government.”