Introduced
by
To prohibit the use of eminent domain by state or local governments to take private property for the primary benefit of a private entity, rather than for “the use or benefit” of the public. This would place in statute (but not in the Constitution) a standard similar to the state Supreme Court’s 2005 ruling in Wayne County v. Hathcock, which reversed its 1981 “Poletown” ruling, and held that a government taking is not justified just because a different use of the property might increase government tax revenues. Note: The 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London held that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit such takings, but that states are free to prohibit them anyway.
Referred to the Committee on Government Operations
Reported without amendment
With the recommendation that the substitute (H-4) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Substitute offered
To replace the previous version of the bill with one that is essentially a "work in progress," with further revisions incorporated into the Drolet substitute, including the blight definition.
The substitute failed by voice vote
Substitute offered
by
To replace the previous version of the bill with one that would place in statute the same provisions that <a href="http://www.michiganvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=41339">Senate Joint Resolution E</a> will place in the Constitution if adopted by voters in November, 2006. The substitute also adds an explicit definition of "blight," which is often used as a justification for taking private property, but which is so loosely defined in current statutes that it can be used to condemn property that a reasonable person would not perceive as blighted.
The substitute passed by voice vote
Passed in the House 102 to 1 (details)
To prohibit the use of eminent domain by state or local governments to take private property for the primary benefit of a private entity, rather than for “the use or benefit” of the public. This would place in statute the same provisions that <a href="http://www.michiganvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=41339">Senate Joint Resolution E</a> will place in the Constitution if adopted by voters in November, 2006, including placing the burden of proof on a governmental entity to demonstrate that a particular property is being taken for a public use, or because it is "blighted," and requiring compensation of 125 percent of the fair market value if a private home is taken. The bill also would add to statute an explicit definition of "blight," which is often used as a justification for taking private property, but which is so loosely defined in current statutes that it can be used to condemn property that a reasonable person would not perceive as blighted.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation
Reported without amendment
With the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Substitute offered
To clarify that to qualify for the 125 percent compensation the actual structure must be taken, not just a part of the property. Also, to establish that a taking for a county drainage is not considered a taking for the purpose of conferring a private benefit on a private entity, which would be prohibited by the bill.
The substitute passed by voice vote
Passed in the Senate 33 to 4 (details)
To prohibit the use of eminent domain by state or local governments to take private property for the primary benefit of a private entity, rather than for “the use or benefit” of the public. This would place in statute the same provisions that <a href="http://www.michiganvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=41339">Senate Joint Resolution E</a> will place in the Constitution if adopted by voters in November, 2006, including placing the burden of proof on a governmental entity to demonstrate that a particular property is being taken for a public use, or because it is "blighted," and requiring compensation of 125 percent of the fair market value if a private home is taken. The bill also would add to statute an explicit definition of "blight," which is often used as a justification for taking private property, but which is so loosely defined in current statutes that it can be used to condemn property that a reasonable person would not perceive as blighted.
Passed in the House 104 to 1 (details)
To concur with the Senate-passed version of the bill, which establishes that takings for government drainage projects are not considered "for private use".
