August 25, 2005


Dear Friends:

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution allows the taking of land by governments for "public use" with "just compensation." Governments have long used this practice of eminent domain to build roads and schools and to allow utilities to run services lines.

The June 23rd U.S. Supreme Court ruling has widened the term "public use" to mean public benefit. In its ruling, regarding efforts by the City of New London, Connecticut to condemn homes in an old part of town to make way for a private development, the Court said public use could mean something that brings a public benefit, such as jobs or increased tax revenue. In short, the Court's ruling opened the door to the taking of private property for private use.

Property rights groups have united with more liberal organizations in claiming that taking property for economic use usually favors the rich over the poor. Those who oppose the Court decision point to San Diego, where a merchant's prosperous cigar and coffee shop was taken to make way for a hotel project, which the City said would bring more tax revenue.

Those who favor the Court ruling declare that redevelopment is sometimes the only tool to improve the quality of life in communities and to jump-start the economic revitalization of neighborhoods.

A July Wall Street Journal/NBC News polls shows clearly that the legal issue that concerns Americans most is "private property rights." Indeed, the issue of property rights has generated shock waves of concern among lawmakers in just about every state.

Legislators in Maryland and other states are preparing legislation to define eminent domain. The issue of eminent domain and private property rights promises to be a big issue on the 2006 General Assembly agenda.

Please do not hesitate to contact me on this or any other legislative matter of concern to you. As always, I encourage and welcome your input.

Sincerely,


Ann Marie Doory