The Supreme Court's eminent domain ruling has Florida lawmakers and lawyers drawing up legislation.
By CARRIE JOHNSON, Times Staff Writer
Published July 7, 2005
Two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled a Connecticut town could bulldoze homes for private development, elected officials and property rights advocates throughout Florida are plotting ways to counteract the decision.
Several law firms are discussing possible legislative proposals. A Florida-based property owners organization has launched a letter-writing campaign. And on Wednesday, state Rep. Everett Rice, R-Treasure Island, filed a resolution that would ask voters to approve a constitutional amendment giving more protection to homeowners.
"There's a whole bunch of folks working on this issue right now on several different fronts," said Jackson Bowman, a St. Petersburg lawyer with the Florida firm of Brigham Moore. "There's a lot of room to get people's opinions."
Under the resolution filed by Rice, who is running for attorney general, voters would be asked to decide whether local governments should have the power to condemn homes for private development.
It is the opening salvo in what many believe will be a torrent of legislation aimed at protecting homeowners after the high court's 5-4 decision in Kelo vs. City of New London, Conn.
House Speaker Allan Bense, R-Panama City, already has appointed a committee to study property rights issues. Gov. Jeb Bush has said he would support legislation aimed at helping property owners.
Opponents say the court's ruling last month cleared the way for governments to abuse the power of eminent domain, which allows cities to condemn homes for public uses such as building highways or wiping out blight. Now, they say, homes can be bulldozed for shopping malls and office parks if the project helps boost a community's economy.
Others say reaction to the decision has been overblown and argue that the court was only putting the decision of what's best for a community in the hands of local government, not federal judges.
Rice said he doesn't want to take any chances. He wants to ask voters if a sentence should be added to the Florida Constitution that reads: "Private economic development shall not be deemed to constitute a public purpose for which private property may be taken by eminent domain."
If the resolution is passed by the Legislature, the question would be placed on the November 2006 ballot, or a special election could be held.
"We could have a Connecticut situation right now in our state where the local government could come out and say they don't like the looks of your neighborhood and they're going to destroy your home," said Rice, the former Pinellas County sheriff who also has a law degree.
"To me, that's outrageous," he said. "It cuts deeply at the fundamental American right to own property."
If approved, the resolution also would restrict the ability of local governments to use eminent domain to remove blight, currently permitted in Florida, Rice said.
"Blight is a moving target," he said. "It can be anything you want it to be."
The Connecticut case began when Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a hotel, health club and offices.
New London officials said that the private development served a public purpose of boosting economic growth and that it outweighed the homeowners' property rights.
Bowman, the St. Petersburg lawyer, applauded Rice's intentions but faulted the proposed amendment for being too broad. The term "private development" could be interpreted to mean many different things, he said.
Al Galbraith, a St. Petersburg assistant city attorney, also said he believed the amendment would be too broad.
"If this goes forward, we're going to spend the next 10 years in litigation, trying to define what the term "economic development' means," Galbraith said.
But Rice's proposal won't be the only one up for consideration.
Bowman said his firm and several others are discussing potential legislation.
Carol Saviak, executive director of the Orlando-based Coalition for Property Rights, said her organization plans to review several proposals for legislation from eminent domain lawyers.
The coalition also joined a national "Hands Off Our Homes" campaign, asking people to urge elected officials to sign a pledge to support legislation that would protect people from the use of eminent domain for private development.
"There is widespread support for statutory or constitutional change in Florida," Saviak said. "I have never seen a political issue take fire like this one."
Michael Allan Wolf, a law professor at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law, said he's not sure Rice's proposal is really necessary.
"I don't think Florida homes are really in danger of being taken for private economic development," Wolf said. "I'm afraid that in the wrong hands, some really good projects might not be allowed."
But Wolf said there's nothing wrong with trying to change the state Constitution to protect homeowners.
In fact, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his majority opinion that states are free to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened.
"This is a legitimate response," Wolf said. "It's how the system is supposed to work."
