Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, the power of eminent domain should never be abused to take private property for the private benefit of another, and I agree with the concept of the bill, but it is very poorly drafted. It goes too far and not far enough.
It will permit many of the abuses and injustices of the past, while bankrupting State and local governments.
It would allow highways to cut through communities and all the other public projects that have historically fallen most heavily on the poor and powerless.
It does nothing to protect displaced renters. They get no compensation, no day in court, but absentee slumlords, they get their day in court.
It allows a taking to give property to a private party ``such as a common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right.''
Does that mean a stadium? It seems to me that is privately owned. It is ``available for use by the general public as of right'' at least as much as a railroad; you can buy a seat. Does that mean a shopping center? You do not even need a ticket. So this would not even prevent the use of public domain, apparently, for sport stadiums and shopping centers.
The World Trade Center, on the other hand, could not have been built under this law. It was publicly owned, but leased as office and retail space.
Affordable housing, like the Hope VI program would be prohibited.
Local governments under this bill would risk all their economic development funding for 2 years, even for unrelated projects. The financial cloud this would place over all cities would ensure that they could never issue a bond, for any purpose, and companies doing business with the city would face the threat of bankruptcy.
If we really want to help property owners, we should give them the right to stop the taking before it happens. This bill makes them wait until after the condemnation and offers them no damages. People do not want to bankrupt their communities. They want to keep their homes. This bill does not do that. I will offer an amendment that will at least change this part of the bill and solve that problem.
A bill to prevent takings for improper purposes makes sense. It does not make sense to say that if the government makes a mistake, instead of giving private injunctive relief in advance to prevent that mistake to help the property owner, you put a cloud on the future finance of the State or city as they can never issue bonds for any purpose.
Let us protect property owners but not destroy our communities. We should do this right.