Proposal 4 - Yes or No?

[francishsu]

The proposed constituional amendment would:

[*]Prohibit government from taking private property for transfer to another

private individual or business for purposes of economic development or

increasing tax revenue.

[*]Provide that is an individual

[gvsusean]

The proposed constituional amendment would:

[*]Prohibit government from taking private property for transfer to another

private individual or business for purposes of economic development or

increasing tax revenue.

[*]Provide that is an individual

[mgman]

Does this belong in the state Constitution?

[gvsusean]

No. It is just a knee jerk reaction to Kelo and an unnecessary one. It does nothing but destroy the ability of the legislature and local governments from coming up with the best way to get projects accomplished. There is no need for an amendment, if there needs to be a new rule, it should be passed by the legislature. Who knows how the population will feel about some project ten years from now, it is just not needed.

[OneSweetWorld]

I think the last thing needed anywhere in this country, especially right here in Michigan, is even more government control. I'm voting yes.

[RustTown]

No. It is just a knee jerk reaction to Kelo and an unnecessary one. It does nothing but destroy the ability of the legislature and local governments from coming up with the best way to get projects accomplished. There is no need for an amendment, if there needs to be a new rule, it should be passed by the legislature. Who knows how the population will feel about some project ten years from now, it is just not needed.

[hudkina]

What's up with all of these constitutional amendments? This should be a matter decided by the legislature. If the legislature decides to enact a law banning this practice then they can do it. There is no reason to amend the constitution.

[RustTown]

Again, there are times where the people must bring issues over the heads of legislatures when the legislatures are far behind the people on an issue. A great example of this is the Civil Rights Acts during the 60's where our legislature wasn't in any rush to end legal segregation/equal rights/women's rights. So, their are legitimate reasons to take issues above the heads of the legislature, but those should be few and far between when government has completely dropped the ball. But, it is a slippery slope. If anyone knows anything about California politics, you'd see how disgusting this can get.

[tamias6]

Awwww! Did you want the government to come in and force me off my property just so you can build a Wal-Mart on it? Sorry, Jack. It's ethier pay me to move on or you'll have to build your Wal-Mart somwhere else. So I'm saying yes to 4. Why? My property is my property, and no government pencil pusher should have the right to boot me off from it in the name of getting more bang for the buck in tax revenue. If any level government had unchecked power to say "Eminant Domain, you slob! Take your six pack and your no good self and ship out.", then what's the point of the American dream of home ownership?

[egrguy]

So, that I understand this, voting Yes is to support ammending the constitution, whereas voting no is against this?

While I agree that this should be a law the legislature passed, I am very against eminent domain.

[RustTown]

Yes, that's correct, jdkacz.

To further expound on why I'm wary about ballot iniatives is we currently have a proposal facing us, that will most likely pass with overwhemling support, to ban the hunting of Mourning Doves in Michigan. Again, an emotional issue that tugs on everyone's heart strings, but do we really need to amend the constitution to ban the hunting of Mourning Doves? I always worry these ballot iniatives are emotion driven, and people don't really think these things through and don't have the time about time these things go before the voters. This also goes for Proposal II, which sounds very nice and fair on the surface, but when looked into further it's much more complicated than it appears. On this specific issue, I'd have to better educate myself. Most likely, I probably won't vote at all on the issue.

[francishsu]

I think the part prohibiting transferring property to a private individual or business is the one that concerns me. I don't like the idea of a single owner potentially holding a development project hostage.

Owner gets 125% of fair market value for public use? Sounds reasonable.

Require a higher standard of proof for cases of blight? Also sounds reasonable.

Is there some compensation to the owner that should be reasonable even if the property gets transferred to a private party? 200% of FMV perhaps

[torgo]

I think that it is worth noting that, according to an article I just read, the practice of condemning of property for private development is already barred in the State of Michigan, thanks to a recent State Supreme court ruling. I think the main effect of this law would be to make eminent domain more difficult across the board, whether for economic development or not.

There is a large article on this in the 09/06 issue of Planning and Zoning News thats worth reading.

[Time]

For those of us who are pro growth, i would think that a yes vote would make some projects more difficult to pull of.

[snoogit]

I guess I'm confused because I thought federal constitution trumped state constitution anyways?

so even if this were passed would it be illegal to enforce?

[egrguy]

The supreme court placed in the hands of the individual states to decide so I suppose they made the decision that it would be legal for individual states to enforce this, if passed within that state.