NE2: Northeast Property Rights Act (Law)

[cinyc]

Northeast Property Rights Act

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Northeast Representative Deus naturae

Debate shall be open for 72 hours until around 9PM Eastern Time on January 2, 2014, unless modified or extended.  Representative Deus naturae is encouraged to speak on behalf of the bill within the next 36 hours.  Because there is no other pending legislation in the proposed legislation thread, no penalty will be imposed if the sponsor does not speak.

The floor is open to debate.

[Lincoln Republican]

I will oppose this proposal.

There are instances where eminent domain must be an option of the government, such as when the government may require the property in question as a matter of public safety or security, or perhaps the government would find it necessary to construct public utilities for the use of residents in the area, or perhaps these public utilities will service a much larger geographic area.

The land may be required for the construction of highways or railways, which will benefit large segments of the population.

The use of eminent domain must not be precluded as an option of the government.  There may be and will be circumstances where this option must be available to the government to serve the greater public good.

Something that should be included in any legislation regarding the use of eminent domain is the property holder must be compensated by the government at fair market value.

Simply prohibiting the use of eminent domain by the government is neither a practical nor a prudent policy.  It is short sighted and simply not practical.

I strongly urge  the Assembly to defeat this ill thought out proposal.

[Deus Naturae]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I remember the Mideast enacting something like this a while ago, and I thought it would be a good idea to do something similar in the Northeast, for several reasons.

The first reason we should pass this is one of principle. The right to own property is a basic human dignity, not a privilege that the state may revoke when it finds it convenient to do so.

The second reason is economic. People will be more willing to purchase or develop property in the Northeast if they know that it is safe from government confiscation.

That said, I'm open to working in exceptions or changing the bill to simply guarantee victims of eminent domain the right to a certain level of compensation if the current bill goes too far for this body.

[Deus Naturae]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lincoln Republican]

Tank you Representative Deus for your willingness to compromise. 

I do find, however, 200% of the total property value to be an excessive expenditure of taxpayers funds.

I believe what would be more in line would be fair market value, plus perhaps something along the lines of an additional 10 or 20% to accommodate relocation for the affected party or parties.   

[sentinel]

I'm on the same page as Representative Winfield, there is a need for eminent domain. We can put checks in place to make sure that it is not abused --but to eliminate it completely is unnecessary.

[cinyc]

I also agree with Representative Winfield.  Eminent Domain is a necessary evil in some circumstances, and 200% of fair market value is a little bit too high for compensation.  I think eminent domain should also be limited to takings for public use, not private benefit like taking property to allow a private business to expand.

[Deus Naturae]

In light of arguments presented by Assemblymen Winfield and Cinyc, I will withdraw my previous amendment (if such an action is allowed) and offer the following one:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[cinyc]

In light of arguments presented by Assemblymen Winfield and Cinyc, I will withdraw my previous amendment (if such an action is allowed) and offer the following one:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can withdraw any amendment proposed by you at any time.

This amendment looks good to me.

[Lincoln Republican]

I agree with this amendment in the main, however, we will have to decide whether the compensation paid out should be 20%.

Are any of the Representatives in this Assembly thinking, for example,  more along the lines of 10% or 15%, or does 20% meet with overall approval?

I would like to know the views of the Representatives in this matter. 

[cinyc]

I think it should be at least 120%.  Relocation costs need to be covered, and could be higher than 20% in the case of cheap condos.  It's expensive to move.

So I propose an amendment:

Northeast Property Rights Act
1. Any citizen of the Northeast who has property taken permanently from them by the regional government of the Northeast, or by the government of any jurisdiction within the Northeast, shall by entitled to compensation equal to at least 120% of the fair market value of the property at the time the property was taken.
2. The regional government of the Northeast, as well as the government of any jurisdiction within the Northeast, may not use property acquired through the use of eminent domain for any purpose other than that of public use.
[/quote]

[Cincinnatus]

I don't like the ambiguity of "at least" to be honest.  There is quite a lot of room for interpretation with the idea of 120% market value or more, no limitations imposed.   I would be supportive of 10% or 15% + as Winfield suggests, however, I won't argue against the Sponsors amendment designating 120% compensation. 

As a side note, I'm extremely happy the sponsor is willing to compromise, as the original texts was impractical [despite good intentions].

[Lincoln Republican]

I agree with Cincinnatus.

Wording that states at least 120% is too unclear.

We must come to a consensus, whether it be 10%, 15%, or 20%, and make it clear in the bill.

[cinyc]

I withdraw my amendment.

Perhaps we can settle on 110% plus reasonable relocation costs?

[Lincoln Republican]

Representative Cinyc, for purposes of clarity and so nothing is left to interpretation, would you be amenable to 115%?

That would cover fair market value plus 10%, plus an additional 5% to cover potential miscellaneous costs.   

[cinyc]

Representative Cinyc, for purposes of clarity and so nothing is left to interpretation, would you be amenable to 115%?

That would cover fair market value plus 10%, plus an additional 5% to cover potential miscellaneous costs.   

I'm worried about someone in relatively cheap housing, like a condo, or in a factory with a lot of equipment to move losing money because the costs of moving out of the facility to a new comparable facility is higher than 15% of the fair market value of the facility.  Relocation costs should be reimbursed.  No one should be worse off for being forced to move.  They should be in at least as good a position as they would have been if they didn't have to move because of the government's taking.

[Deus Naturae]

Cinyc's amendment is friendly.

[cinyc]

Cinyc's amendment is friendly.

I withdrew the amendment before you declared it friendly, so there's no proposed amendment on the floor.

[cinyc]

I would also note, Representative Winfield, that payment of reasonable relocation costs in eminent domain proceedings is standard in most of the U.S.  There is a federal law called the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act that has been adopted by most states.  Illinois, for example, codified payment of reasonable relocation costs in 735 ILCS 30/10-5-62:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If we do not provide for reasonable relocation costs and costs are higher than the excess 15% of fair market value, we might be running afoul of Article VI, Section 10 of the Atlasian Constitution, which provides:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just compensation might be read to require reimbursement of reasonable relocation costs.

[Lincoln Republican]

Under the circumstances as noted, I have no problem with the legislation stating

plus reasonable relocation costs.

I may point out, however, Representative Cinyc, that at one point you did propose 110%, less than my 115% proposal.

[cinyc]

Under the circumstances as noted, I have no problem with the legislation stating

plus reasonable relocation costs.

I may point out, however, Representative Cinyc, that at one point you did propose 110%, less than my 115% proposal.

115% is fine with me.  So I will then formally propose an amendment to section 1:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Deus Naturae]

Amendment is friendly.

[cinyc]

The debate period is now over.  Voting will begin on final passage of the bill.

Northeast Property Rights Act

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This vote will remain open until the earlier of 48 hours or when all Representatives have voted.

[cinyc]

Aye.

[Deus Naturae]

Aye