These measures sound great. Let's hope they pass.

This is what happens when legislators don't think ahead and craft legislation that protects the public's interests. We need some kind of control on eminent domain, but these ballot initives sound like a REALLY bad idea...

We need some kind of control on eminent domain

How about a law mandating that if the state wants to take away property to build something, it has to build it itself, rather than handing it over to a private developer? That way you retain public accountability for whatever gets built.

I am highly unconvinced that governments in the US have too much power of eminent domain. There are too few major public works projects going on in the US, not too many.

I am highly unconvinced that governments in the US have too much power of eminent domain. There are too few major public works projects going on in the US, not too many.
The problem isn't that there are too many public works projects, it's that the government's taking private property for private works projects. That's the basis for anger at Kelo, not that government's taking private property to build schools or roads.
These proposed laws are bad, though. See also Jails For Judges in South Dakota.

These initiatives have little to nothing to do with eminent domain beyond the fact that it is used in some of the stupider campaign rhetoric.

What they do it make land use regulations impossible, usually retroactively in an arbitrary way.

If governments think that private property must be used for "public" projects, let them pay for it. Seizure of private property is tyranny.

Uh, Brian ... They already do pay for it - it's called eminent domain and it's in the U.S. Constitution. The Government can force you to sell your land for public purposes, like building roads and schools, but they have to pay you for it. It's usually the only way roads and schools can get built.

The issue is whether local Governments can decide that a private company building a shopping mall or a housing development is a "public purpose" under the constitution. Shopping malls and housing developments can benefit communities, and one person could stop an entire project by refusing to sell. On the other hand, the eminent domain process can be abused to help out private contractors and their friends. Therefore, it's a close call.

The Supreme Court decided that these projects are allowed under eminent domain. These initiatives pretend to be about reversing that, but are really about a reactionary conservative agenda of allowing totally unrestricted private development.

Because so many misinformed people fall for irrelevant statements like "Seizure of private property is tyranny", I'm afraid most of these initiatives will pass.

David, my point was that the goverment should have buy the property from the seller w/o the ability to coerce the sale. If that means that means that malls or housing projects can't go where the government would like, so be it. My apologies for not making that clearer.

Brian, How about roads? If no coerced sales means that roads can't go where the government would like, do you also say "so be it"? If so, you'll need to amend the constitution - and drive around the farmhouse in the fast lane of the interstate.

As for private developments, local and state governments and voters (and maybe Congress) can restrict the use of eminent domain in those cases if they want. I'd even listen to the arguments on both sides and consider supporting some restrictions.

However, the initiatives under discusion aren't about that. These initiatives are nothing more than a way to gut environmental and other regulations and make large developers rich, under the guise of overturning Kelo.

BTW - after inadvertantly forgetting to post last time under my handle, I hope I won't be dodging black helicopters for the rest of my life.

CK,

I'm perfectly willing to drive around farmhouses. I harbor no illusions about being able to change the Constitution, but one can dream....

I suspect that Ryan's example of the nuclear plant is just wee bit hyperbolic. That said, developers are welcome to make money as long they don't use the government to take the property of others. I think that "take" (or seize) is a fair characterization. When the spectre of condemnation hangs over a sale, the transaction is hardly fair.

I'll further open myself up to criticism by saying that I believe that property rights are are as fundamental as any other rights in free society.

Brian, I'll agree property rights are fundamental, but no right is or should be unrestricted. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

As far as the "spectrum of condemnation hanging over a sale" making it "hardly fair", the constitution gives the property owner the right to fair market value, actionable in a court of law.

What's at issue in Prop 90 in CA (can't speak to the other state issues) is not eminent domain at all but any rule that might potentially impact value of land. Say a pesticide is found to be fouling the waterways in a jurisdiction, and the area bans it. Under Prop 90, anyone who felt that it interfered with their property could sue for damages.