Floor Statements
Floor Statement on H.R. 4772, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2006
Washington, DC,
September 28, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Constitution provides for just compensation where government takes property. On that there is general agreement. There is also agreement that the ability of government to take property must be strictly limited to a public purpose and that the power to take property must be used sparingly and judiciously. Those are not controversial points. This bill is something different, something radically and dangerously different. This bill goes far outside the bounds of the Constitution to reward big developers and polluters whenever local government tries to preserve the quality of life in our communities by controlling the spread of huge landfills or sprawling subdivisions or factory farms or adult bookstores. Under this bill, a developer could circumvent local government and normal State court consideration, drag our local governments into Federal court, and demand payment every time our constituents want to preserve their health or quality of life. The threat of Federal court litigation, expensive Federal court litigation, is real and troubling. One representative of the National Association of Home Developers said this bill would be a ``hammer to the head'' of every local official. That is what this bill does. It greatly expands the definition of a taking. It would require the government to provide compensation in cases where the Constitution does not. It would allow developers to game the system by arbitrarily dividing their lots to squeeze money out of communities. Should we have to pay someone to keep them from poisoning our drinking water or ignoring our zoning laws or opening an adult bookstore? That seems to be the claim of developers who want to fill in wetlands at will or build garbage dumps the size of small towns. Is it a taking for which me must compensate the developer if we make them pay their fair share of the cost of the new roads, sewers, water lines and schools that will be needed to support their new subdivision? Should local taxpayers have to pay a developer whenever any conditions are imposed on a developer before allowing him to move forward? That's what this bill does. Let's have no doubt this is a big developers' bill. My friend, the sponsor of this bill, has trumpeted the fact that the bill is supported by the home builders, the realtors, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, and the U.S. Farm Bureau. It is opposed by environmental organizations, the American Planning Associations, consumer organizations, and your mayors, your Governors and your attorneys general of the States. Which side are you on? One of the majority's witnesses at our hearing on this bill was Mr. Frank Kottschade, a major local developer who complained that he didn't get everything that he wanted from his local government. Another was an attorney, Joseph Trauth, who represents Wal-Mart, Home Depot and GE in zoning cases. Small developers. He is proud of the fact that he helped the Rumpke landfill in Hamilton, Ohio, expand by 65 acres. That is who the bill is for, not for homeowners who want to protect their homes and communities. Let me clear up some confusion. Many Members of this House were outraged by the Supreme Court's Kelo decision which dealt with the use of eminent domain to take private property from one person and give it to another private party in order to promote economic development. The distinguished chairman spoke of Kelo. This bill has nothing to do with Kelo and nothing to do with eminent domain. It is not about taking property. It is about regulating responsible use of property. It is about stopping the ability of local governments to pass zoning laws, environmental protection laws, to enforce them to protect the local residents against those who would pollute the environment, build every inch and fill our suburban towns with 200-story buildings. You have heard Kelo discussed in this debate because the real purpose of this bill is simply indefensible. This bill has to do with zoning, environmental protection, and environmental regulation. This is about protecting homeowners from abuse by developers and polluters. The bill, actually, is about stopping the ability of local governments to protect homeowners from abuse by developers and polluters. I would just note the irony that the Republican leadership the other day moved a bill that would limit the rights of religious minorities under the 1871 Civil Rights Act. This bill expands the rights of developers and polluters under the same 1871 Civil Rights Act and allows them to extort local communities. That is the Republican civil rights agenda. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. |