©
Virginia's Senate has a chance to correct an injustice common to property owners forced to surrender land for public use.
The government is required to compensate an owner fairly when it takes land to widen a road, for example, or build a school. That American right, embedded in Virginia’s Constitution, was voiced by the commonwealth’s own Thomas Jefferson, who wrote: “The defense of private property is the standard by which 'every provision’ of law, past and present, shall be judged.”
But Virginia law does not make clear that there is a right to fair reimbursement when property is lost or limited for a public right of way. Transportation officials say it would be too expensive — and estimate the impact at more than $10 million a year.
That shouldn’t be a reason for ignoring the Constitution. If property is less valuable because the government has restricted access to it, that loss should be factored into the amount of damages the owner is paid — and it would be, under a bill sponsored by Del. Ward Armstrong, a Henry County Democrat.
The legislation, which passed the House 98-1, requires any change or restriction to property taken under eminent domain to be considered in assessing damages. The Virginia Farm Bureau and the Family Foundation support it.
In a year noteworthy for its painful budget cuts, members of the House deserve credit for trying to right a wrong, to ensure that the transportation department and other government entities don’t continue to shortchange property owners.
It’s time for the Senate to follow suit. The bill is expected to be heard today in the Courts of Justice committee, whose members include Sens. Fred Quayle of Suffolk, Tommy Norment of Williamsburg and Louise Lucas of Portsmouth. They should pass it.
For once, this can’t be about the state not having money in the budget. It must be about doing right by property owners.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Two comments
First, Reid, it's not only the taking of property that affects business operations, the practice of adverse zoning can also make or break a business, such as happened to tattoo establishments hat were told to locate in industrial areas.
The other comment is my disgust at those who pervert any topic to bash any of President Obamas programs. What did eminent domain have to do with health care?
Property Rights
I agree that government might acquire property for only legitimate government use, not to increase the tax base.
However, I think it is interesting in the selective use of referring to the Constitution. When the paper agrees with something, they must uphold the Constitution, but when they don't they ignore it. Example, the "health care" debate. Most of the items in the current bills are not authorized by the Constitution. But in Nancy Pelosi's words: "Are you serious?"
I agree with the Pilot on this issue
I am pleased to read this editorial. I agree with the Pilot on this issue. In addition to the fair market value of LAND - we must also consider the fair market value of a BUSINESS being adversely impacted by a government "taking". For many BUSNISSES, the LOCATION of their business is critical to the value of their income. The use of eminent domain to force BUSINESS owners to relocate elsewhere needs to take into account the LOSS OF BUSINESS they will suffer as a result of a government "taking" - or, in the case of Light Rail or other government lead redevelopment efforts, the adverse impact to a business due to government limiting access to the business and driving away customers for a long period of time. The use of eminent domain should be RARE, not a common strategy to be used by government or unaccountable, all-appointed redevelopment authorities to infringe on our property rights - especially our right to say "NO!" when government wants our property to turn it over to a different private entity for non-public redevelopment. Needed roads and schools are one thing. But road projects like the oceanfront Laskin Road “gateway” project in Virginia Beach are a blatant and egregio