For Immediate Release:
October 27, 2005
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.