If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Alabama is on the forefront of Eminent Domain legislation. Legislators are negotiating a new bill to replace legislation written last year that is considered too soft on eminent domain. The biggest battle is over what is considered blight. I think they are on the right track here.

You can have tough laws sounding laws, but if the definition of the terms in these laws are vague and not well defined, you are headed towards trouble. Lobbyists and legislatures alike make their living in these gray areas as they are constantly looking to create legislation that looks good to the public while the reality is that the new laws and regulations benefit limited parties.

The phrase “the devil is in the details” describes politics perfectly. When an honest and tight definition of blight is determined that restricts the governments to truly keep them from applying blight to homes and businesses that could be considered “blighted” only by a greedy developer or politician, then we will have eminent domain that works for the good of the people.

Rep. Marcel Black, D-Tuscumbia, the sponsor of the bill, said he tried to strengthen language which was left out of the law passed by the Legislature last year. Black said his proposal would require governments to narrowly define what they want to use a condemned property for and more narrowly define blight.

Under the current law, blight is broadly defined and governments can use eminent domain for “public use” without specifying how they would use the condemned property. Black said his bill was a “realistic” version of eminent domain restrictions. “I’m a realist,” Black said. “A realist (knows you need) 63 votes in the House to pass this.”

Some who spoke in the public meeting weren’t satisfied. They complained the legislation was too complex, not strong enough and would be decided ultimately by judges. “We all know how liberal judges are deciding on these things,” Don Casey said.

Other speakers were also concerned about reimbursement provisions when a government condemns the owner’s property. Irvin Siegal, whose property was condemned by the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said the payment didn’t equal the value of his property, which he leased out to two restaurants. via the The Huntsville Times.

Related posts:

1. Tennessee Eminent Domain Bill on Way To Governor
2. Virginia Legislature Battles Over Eminent Domain Legislation
3. Georgia Legislature Works to Restrict Eminent Domain
4. Missouri Eminent Domain Bill A Landmark In the Eminent Domain Battle
5. Governor Bill Richardson Ruins Political Future with Tin Ear on Eminent Domain Issue