Missouri Governor signs law restricting eminent domain
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
In another win for those fighting eminent domain abuse, the state of Missouri just had a law signed into effect that limits the governments use of eminent domain, and pays a premium to land and homeowners if eminent domain is used.
The Missouri law bars the taking of private property “solely” to increase taxes or create jobs. In addition, property owners whose land, homes or small businesses are condemned under the new standards would get a boost in their compensation. An earlier version of the bill would have set a tougher standard of barring property taking for “predominantly” economic development reasons.
“Owning private property is as sacred an issue as anything we have in this country,” said Charlie Kruse, Missouri Farm Bureau president.
The law includes a 25 percent bonus, and if a home or small business has been owned by the same family for at least 50 years, a 50 percent bonus.
Critics have said the reforms focus on helping farmers and those in rural areas while doing little to help city dwellers. via Columbia Missourian


Comment by Ellen on 9 September 2008:
I wanted to inform you about a situation that is occurring here in New York over eminent domain abuse. Nick Sprayregen, owner of the family business Tuck-It-Away, may lose his business to Columbia University if he loses his long fight against their attempt to take his property (see the petition below). We are trying to garner the attention of bloggers, activists, and citizens across the country. For further information visit his site at http://www.mylandismine.com. Thank you in advance for your assistance.
The Petition:
We, the undersigned, object to the use of eminent domain in the Columbia University Expansion Plan.
First, Manhattanvile is not a blighted community and Eminent Domain is not needed to stimulate economic development or to eliminate blight.
Second, The Columbia Plan has been developer driven and developed principally to benefit Columbia. The taking of private property and transfering it to Columbia, a private institution, is unconstitutional and illegal because it does not constitute a “public use” and is without a dominant public purpose.
Third, since Columbia now owns over 80% of the property in the affected area and will have control over 96% of the area, Eminent Domain is not necessary or appropriate to attain any legitimate public purpose in Manhattanville.
By signing our name below, we, individually and collectively, say NO to the use of Eminent Domain in the Columbia Expansion Plan in West Harlem/Manhattanville.