>Can anyone point to a state which is contemplating legislation with real
>teeth in it which would maintain the expropriation power but, crucially,
>limit it to purposes of public rather than private development? That would
>help persuade those like myself that this is campaign worth supporting.
I posted the link to the Institute for Justice's model legislation. You can get links from there to actual bills. Here it is again.
Doug
----
As it turns out, this is pretty much what the Institute for Justice's model law says <http://castlecoalition.org/legislation/model/state_statute.html>:
>Requiring that Eminent Domain Be for Public Use and Defining Public Use
>Notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither this State nor
>any political subdivision thereof nor any other condemning entity
>shall use eminent domain unless it is necessary for a public use.
>Whenever property is condemned and will be used by a private party,
>the condemnor must establish by clear and convincing evidence that
>the use of eminent domain complies with this section and is
>reasonably necessary.
>Public use: The term "public use" shall only mean (1) the
>possession, occupation, and enjoyment of the land by the general
>public, or by public agencies; (2) the use of land for the creation
>or functioning of public utilities or common carriers*; or (3) where
>the use of eminent domain (a)(i) removes a public nuisance; (ii)
>removes a structure that is beyond repair or unfit for human
>habitation or use; or (iii) is used to acquire abandoned property
>and (b) eliminates a direct threat to public health or safety
>caused by the property in its current condition**. The public
>benefits of economic development, including an increase in tax base,
>tax revenues, employment, general economic health, shall not
>constitute a public use.