Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 1689

Should Eminent Domain Not be Used by Federal or State Gov't for Economic Development Purposes?

Argument in favor

The use of eminent domain to make land more economically productive often harms minorities and lower-income communities. Moreover, using eminent domain to serve local economic interests runs counter to its historical use to take private property for highways and other public works.

SneakyPete's Opinion
···
07/22/2018
H.R. 1689 - Private Property Rights Protection Act I STRONGLY support and recommend the passage of H.R. 1689 bill — known as the Private Property Rights Protection Act — Which would prohibit state and local governments from using eminent domain to condemn and acquire private property for economic development purposes. It’d also exclude states in violation of this prohibition from receiving federal economic development assistance for two fiscal years unless they’ve returned the property claimed under eminent domain, replaced any other property destroyed as a result of the eminent domain violation, and paid any applicable penalties and interest. The federal government would also be prohibited from using eminent domain for economic development purposes. The use of eminent domain to make land more economically productive often harms minorities and lower-income communities. Moreover, using eminent domain to serve local economic interests runs counter to its historical use to take private property for highways and other public works. 7*22*18 ....
Like (49)
Follow
Share
···
07/22/2018
Eminent domain is theft. It doesn't matter if you pay them, and it doesn't matter what you pay them. It doesn't matter if it's for a private corporation or for the government. It's a tool of tyrants. It is antithetical to freedom. Eminent domain IS immoral, and it SHOULD BE illegal in ALL instances.
Like (38)
Follow
Share
Mart's Opinion
···
07/22/2018
Property is property, and using general welfare clause to take mine for higher taxation, is a little over the edge.
Like (20)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Many states have already amended their constitutions or enacted laws to directly or indirectly prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes. Additionally, current use of eminent domain for economic development purposes is limited and shouldn’t be curtailed.

Frances's Opinion
···
07/22/2018
THIS BILL SOUNDS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE-AND IF SOMETHING SOUNDS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT USUALLY IS. THE FACT THAT IT WAS INTRODUCED BY A REPUBLICAN FROM WISCONSIN AND IS BACKED BY THE VERY CONSERVATIVE TEA PARTY FREEDOMWORKS SITE MAKES ME VERY SUSPICIOUS!
Like (43)
Follow
Share
Isadora's Opinion
···
07/23/2018
This bill exempts religious and non profit properties from being subject to eminent domain. Some non profits should be protected but some religious institutions have ample resources. Tax payers should be protected more than religious organizations.
Like (11)
Follow
Share
jimsander's Opinion
···
07/23/2018
“Blight” is a vague term but so is “economic development” – this bill needs to be much more clear to make abuse more difficult.
Like (4)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on the Judiciary
  • The house Passed July 23rd, 2018
    Passed by Voice Vote
      house Committees
      Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
      Committee on the Judiciary
    IntroducedMarch 22nd, 2017

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on the Judiciary
  • The house Passed July 23rd, 2018
    Passed by Voice Vote
      house Committees
      Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
      Committee on the Judiciary
    IntroducedMarch 22nd, 2017

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

Bill Activity

  • action
    Introduced in House
  • referral
    Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
  • referral
    Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
  • action
    Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
  • calendar
    Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
  • action
    Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 115-859.
  • calendar
    Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 666.
  • action
    Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
  • action
    Considered under suspension of the rules.
  • action
    DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1689.
  • vote
    On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
  • action
    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
  • referral
    Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
    H.R. 1689 - Private Property Rights Protection Act I STRONGLY support and recommend the passage of H.R. 1689 bill — known as the Private Property Rights Protection Act — Which would prohibit state and local governments from using eminent domain to condemn and acquire private property for economic development purposes. It’d also exclude states in violation of this prohibition from receiving federal economic development assistance for two fiscal years unless they’ve returned the property claimed under eminent domain, replaced any other property destroyed as a result of the eminent domain violation, and paid any applicable penalties and interest. The federal government would also be prohibited from using eminent domain for economic development purposes. The use of eminent domain to make land more economically productive often harms minorities and lower-income communities. Moreover, using eminent domain to serve local economic interests runs counter to its historical use to take private property for highways and other public works. 7*22*18 ....
    Like (49)
    Follow
    Share
    THIS BILL SOUNDS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE-AND IF SOMETHING SOUNDS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT USUALLY IS. THE FACT THAT IT WAS INTRODUCED BY A REPUBLICAN FROM WISCONSIN AND IS BACKED BY THE VERY CONSERVATIVE TEA PARTY FREEDOMWORKS SITE MAKES ME VERY SUSPICIOUS!
    Like (43)
    Follow
    Share
    Eminent domain is theft. It doesn't matter if you pay them, and it doesn't matter what you pay them. It doesn't matter if it's for a private corporation or for the government. It's a tool of tyrants. It is antithetical to freedom. Eminent domain IS immoral, and it SHOULD BE illegal in ALL instances.
    Like (38)
    Follow
    Share
    Property is property, and using general welfare clause to take mine for higher taxation, is a little over the edge.
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    Unless it’s for a known safety reason, like building a dam, the government should not be able to seize private property against the wishes of the landowner. Economic gain for a company should not be a reason. I know eminent domain was used by the current President to build a casino in Atlantic City, and the casino went into bankruptcy, leaving the local government with a useless property while the previous landowners were forced out. A sad situation all around. This should not be repeated.
    Like (18)
    Follow
    Share
    Restrain eminent domain
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes - a 1000 times yes. Eminent domain laws are abused by corrupt politicians. And to add insult to injury - the guvmint tells you what your land is worth!
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    This bill exempts religious and non profit properties from being subject to eminent domain. Some non profits should be protected but some religious institutions have ample resources. Tax payers should be protected more than religious organizations.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    This sounds like one of those " Trick" questions that we had in grade school. The question is "Should eminent domain "NOT" be used ........? The operative word is "NOT" so if you want to vote against "Eminent Domain", you want to vote "YEA"
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    This should include stopping the use of eminent domain for pipelines (any kind) as well.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    Eminent domain is supposed to be for the purpose of government projects that couldn't be done without it - roads, bridges, canals all fit that criterion. e
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Eminent domain and asset forfeiture for people not convicted of crimes is police state theft and corruption and its worst.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Walmart is bad about getting a state or local government to condemn a piece of prime property so that it can be sold to them really cheap so they can build a damn store to sell us more crap we don't want and the person whom they stole it from gets pennies on the dollar for the property! This is wrong!!
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    It shouldn't be used for any purpose. It's private property!
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes. It should Not be possible for our government to buy property for cents on the dollar to accommodate a project. Republicans aren’t u all about the government staying out of your business?
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Eminent domain is theft.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    My family lost their entire ranch because of Eminent Domain. My aunt & uncle lost a large chunk of their ranch to it also. This hits close to home. Absolutely needs to end. ALSO!!!! All you people who are bitching about Republicans & Trump on this need to read some of the fine print. This bill was sponsored by a Republican. We are the ones who want to stay out of your business. And want Less Govt interference in you lives. Let it go.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    There are already laws in place for eminent domain. Also, do not let 45 and his development cronies benefit from one more thing. Drain the swamp by getting rid of these greedy republican dweebs. Votes blue!
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    I don’t believe in taking private land away from its owners so someone else can make money. If it’s not illegal then it should be. I also do not believe taking private land to build a useless wall should be allowed. Private citizens should have the same rights to their property they had when they purchased/ received the property and not something added on after the fact.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Eminent domain should not be used by developers to grab land conveniently located for them. This abuse is nothing more than “legal” theft. If it’s worth so much then offer to pay the owners the real price and accept their decision.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE