For Immediate
Release: October 27, 2005
Senators Laster and Lawler preparing for second hearing on eminent
domain.
Opposing Views Heard in Eminent Domain Hearing
State Senators Daisy
Lawler and Charlie
Laster said they were pleased with the second meeting held
by the Senate's official legislative study on eminent domain.
The two are co-chairs of the committee examining Oklahoma's current
statutes on eminent domain as a result of last summer's Kelo v.
City of New London Supreme Court case.
The high court ruled that a Connecticut municipality did not violate
the United States Constitution when it forced property owners
to sell their land for a private development project which would
provide economic benefits to the community. However, the Court
said that states could tighten restrictions on eminent domain.
Members of the interim study committee heard testimony from representatives
of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, the Oklahoma Municipal League, as
well as an attorney representing a Midwest City business in an
ongoing eminent domain case.
Sen. Lawler, who has voiced her concern for protecting the rights
of private property owners while still encouraging economic development,
felt that Thursday's hearing was very productive.
"I think we had a lot of good testimony today…we had
a lot of different ideas," said Lawler, D-Comanche. Lawler
noted that one thing discussed in committee was the fact that
there are two different definitions of "blighted" in
the statutes. Blight is one of the reasons property can be condemned
by a municipality.
Jeremy Rich, Director of Public Policy for the Oklahoma Farm Bureau
told the committee he believed there needed to be greater clarification
in the statutes regarding eminent domain. Attorney Terry Shipley
testified that the current statutes are antiquated and suggested
a constitutional amendment on eminent domain.
However Margaret Love, an attorney with the Oklahoma Municipal
League told members the current statutes and existing case law
are clear.
Sen. Laster said that it was important for legislators to avoid
a knee-jerk reaction to the Kelo case, but rather to proceed in
a careful and deliberative manner to determine what changes may
or may not be needed. While opposing views were raised during
the hearing regarding eminent domain lawsuits in the state, Laster
pointed out that final court rulings were still pending. He said
based on what he heard in the hearing, there is no cause for alarm
regarding eminent domain in Oklahoma.
"But the subject has arisen. Perhaps we need to update the
laws that we have on the books in some respect. But I didn't hear
anyone today criticize an actual court decision that has come
down in Oklahoma as being wrong. I still think there is no cause
for alarm," said Laster, D-Shawnee.
Laster and Lawler anticipate holding at least one more meeting
before making any final recommendations for the 2006 session.
