| Bi-partisan Heroes of the 2006 Legislative Session: Their commitment to their principles and to their constituents is counter to what we have come to expect in politics and hopefully will be an example to other elected officials |
| Delegate Johnny Joannou a Democrat |
| Senator Ken Cuccinelli a Republican |
| Link to 51 min Debate |
Over the summer Delegate Joannou and Senator
Cuccinelli, both attorneys, crafted legislation to protect
Virginians from the Kelo decision. However, early in the
session it became apparent all eminent domain bills with
meaningful protection were being rolled into Delegate
Terrie Suit's HB94, written by a 12 member Work Group,
primarily composed of local governments, developers and
other condemnors. Only two of the 12 members
represented the interests of property owners.
Delegate Joannou, however, would not allow the Courts
Committee to roll his language into HB94 and against all
odds, decided this issue was of such importance that a
floor challenge was warranted. The Republican
leadership strongly supported Delegate Suit , the
Democrats were silent, and there was no hope of winning,
when Delegate Joannou stood to offer his substitute
amendment, which essentially gutted HB94. His
eloquent speech drew a clear distinction between public
use and public purpose and offered his fellow Delegates
tow paths - one would protect property owners, the other
would not. To the surprise of everyone, four Republicans
(see below) then stood and spoke in favor of Delegate
Joannou's amendment.
Their courageous act, in response to Delegate Joannou's
speech, resulted in passage of the substitute amendment
and ultimately to defeat of the Suit language in the House.
The Senate, led by Senator Ken Stolle, continued to
support Delegate Suit's language, but the House of
Delegates stood firm for property owners.
Cuccinelli, both attorneys, crafted legislation to protect
Virginians from the Kelo decision. However, early in the
session it became apparent all eminent domain bills with
meaningful protection were being rolled into Delegate
Terrie Suit's HB94, written by a 12 member Work Group,
primarily composed of local governments, developers and
other condemnors. Only two of the 12 members
represented the interests of property owners.
Delegate Joannou, however, would not allow the Courts
Committee to roll his language into HB94 and against all
odds, decided this issue was of such importance that a
floor challenge was warranted. The Republican
leadership strongly supported Delegate Suit , the
Democrats were silent, and there was no hope of winning,
when Delegate Joannou stood to offer his substitute
amendment, which essentially gutted HB94. His
eloquent speech drew a clear distinction between public
use and public purpose and offered his fellow Delegates
tow paths - one would protect property owners, the other
would not. To the surprise of everyone, four Republicans
(see below) then stood and spoke in favor of Delegate
Joannou's amendment.
Their courageous act, in response to Delegate Joannou's
speech, resulted in passage of the substitute amendment
and ultimately to defeat of the Suit language in the House.
The Senate, led by Senator Ken Stolle, continued to
support Delegate Suit's language, but the House of
Delegates stood firm for property owners.
| Senator (D) John Edwards |
| Senator (R) Brandon Bell |
Delegates Hogan, Gear, Marshall, and Ware, are the four
who supported the Joannou amendment. His bill restricted
eminent domain to traditional "public uses" such as
highways, parks, schools, public utilities, etc., while
HB94, specifically allowed the use of eminent domain to
transfer property between private individuals, as occurred in
Kelo. It also excluded from its already questionable
restrictions, those condemning authorities that conduct over
90% of all eminent domain projects. Because of the
speeches given by Delegate Joannou, and these four
Republicans the House began to see more clearly, the
differences between these two bills and on the 3rd vote they
ultimately supported the Joannou substitute, 100-0.
Note: It should be mentioned that the initial vote after the
five speeches was 51to 47 for the Joannou amendment.
These 51 votes led to a unanimous victory the following day.
These votes were cast by Delegates: Athey, Bell, Bowling,
Carrico, Cline, Cole, Cosgrove, Crockett-Stark, Cox,
Dance, Fralin, Frederick, Gear, Gilbert, Hamilton, Hargrove,
Hogan, Howell, A.T., Hugo, Hull, Hurt, Ingram, Janis,
Joannou, Johnson, Jones, Lingamfelter, Lewis, Lohr,
Marshall, R.G., Morgan, Nixon, O'Bannon, Oder, Peace,
Phillips, Putney, Reid, Saxman, Scott, E.T., Sherwood,
Shuler, Spruill, Tata, Tyler, Ward, Ware, Welch, Wittman,
and Wright. They also deserve our thanks.
Senator Cuccinelli labored tirelessly in the Senate,
throughout the session for protective legislation; first for his
own bill, and later he joined Delegate Joannou, serving on
the House/Senate conference committee which was
appointed to work out compromise legislation. The clash in
principles that exists, however, between eminent domain for
a public use and for a public purpose could not be
reconciled.
Senator Cuccinelli's desire to protect property owners from
the Kelo decision was supported in the Senate by John
Edwards, a Democrat and Brandon Bell, a Republican.
Senator Edwards voted against HB94 and Senator Bell
voted against HB699. HB699 was the blight companion bill
to HB94. Unfortunately, we were unable to stop HB699 this
year . It defines blight so loosely that almost any home,
business, or property can now be taken as a conservation
easement or as part of a redevelopment project. Our goal
in 2007 is to correct the sweeping condemnations allowed
by HB699 and to pass strong anti-Kelo legislation.
It is disappointing the General Assembly did not pass Kelo
protection this session but no legislation is infinitely better
than bad legislation.
who supported the Joannou amendment. His bill restricted
eminent domain to traditional "public uses" such as
highways, parks, schools, public utilities, etc., while
HB94, specifically allowed the use of eminent domain to
transfer property between private individuals, as occurred in
Kelo. It also excluded from its already questionable
restrictions, those condemning authorities that conduct over
90% of all eminent domain projects. Because of the
speeches given by Delegate Joannou, and these four
Republicans the House began to see more clearly, the
differences between these two bills and on the 3rd vote they
ultimately supported the Joannou substitute, 100-0.
Note: It should be mentioned that the initial vote after the
five speeches was 51to 47 for the Joannou amendment.
These 51 votes led to a unanimous victory the following day.
These votes were cast by Delegates: Athey, Bell, Bowling,
Carrico, Cline, Cole, Cosgrove, Crockett-Stark, Cox,
Dance, Fralin, Frederick, Gear, Gilbert, Hamilton, Hargrove,
Hogan, Howell, A.T., Hugo, Hull, Hurt, Ingram, Janis,
Joannou, Johnson, Jones, Lingamfelter, Lewis, Lohr,
Marshall, R.G., Morgan, Nixon, O'Bannon, Oder, Peace,
Phillips, Putney, Reid, Saxman, Scott, E.T., Sherwood,
Shuler, Spruill, Tata, Tyler, Ward, Ware, Welch, Wittman,
and Wright. They also deserve our thanks.
Senator Cuccinelli labored tirelessly in the Senate,
throughout the session for protective legislation; first for his
own bill, and later he joined Delegate Joannou, serving on
the House/Senate conference committee which was
appointed to work out compromise legislation. The clash in
principles that exists, however, between eminent domain for
a public use and for a public purpose could not be
reconciled.
Senator Cuccinelli's desire to protect property owners from
the Kelo decision was supported in the Senate by John
Edwards, a Democrat and Brandon Bell, a Republican.
Senator Edwards voted against HB94 and Senator Bell
voted against HB699. HB699 was the blight companion bill
to HB94. Unfortunately, we were unable to stop HB699 this
year . It defines blight so loosely that almost any home,
business, or property can now be taken as a conservation
easement or as part of a redevelopment project. Our goal
in 2007 is to correct the sweeping condemnations allowed
by HB699 and to pass strong anti-Kelo legislation.
It is disappointing the General Assembly did not pass Kelo
protection this session but no legislation is infinitely better
than bad legislation.
| Delegate (R) Clarke Hogan |
| Delegate (R) Tom Gear |
| Delegate (R) Bob Marshall |
| Delegate (R) Lee Ware |
More...........
| DO NOT BELIEVE KELO TYPE TAKINGS DO NOT HAPPEN IN VIRGINIA, THEY DO! |
The General Assembly failed to pass legislation to protect Virginians from the Kelo decision
despite the general outrage across the state when US Supreme Court ruled in this case. Both
Democrats and Republicans promised reform.
What They Said:
Delegate William J. Howell Speaker of the House, Republican of Stafford VA
Flanked at a news conference by the entire House Republican Leadership and most
members of the House Republican Caucus, said: "Homeowners, entrepreneurs, churches
and non-profits across Virginia are rightly dismayed by the potential of having their private
property rights severely diminished – or their homes and small businesses confiscated
outright – because of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, which expanded the eminent
domain powers of governments. Citizens need to know that the majority they've elected to lead
the House of Delegates not only shares their concerns and opposes the Court's 5 to 4 ruling,
but that we will do what is necessary to ensure that property rights in Virginia are protected from
the effects of this misguided change in public policy. Here in the birthplace of America's
government, we are committed to ensuring that 'public use' shall continue to mean what it
says: a clearly understood, strictly limited definition that has served us well since our Nation's
founders approved the Bill of Rights over 225 years ago."
Senator Benjamin Lambert Chair of the Black Caucus, Democrat of Richmond
"said he fears the decision will harm minority homeowners most. "Through the years, blacks
in particular who have owned property have seen eminent domain come in and take it. I am
quite sure members of the Black Caucus will get together on this."
What They Did:
When the General Assembly met six months later however, very effective lobbying by local
governments, developers and condemning authorities had convinced the entire Black Caucus,
the Housing Commission, and the leadership of the General Assembly, as well as the Attorney
General and Governor, that Kelo type takings could not happen under Virginia Law and that
Virginia only needed to re-codify the current system to be sure property owners were protected.
Unfortunately, this was untrue as Kelo type takings were already taking place in Virginia before
the Kelo ruling. See Abuses
Years before Kelo, local governments were taking property from one person and making it
available to another person whom they deemed more desirable - often a developer, but not
always. In one case their effort was to take private property that had been in the same family
since the early 1900s and turn it over to a church, whom the government found more desirable.
In 2003 the town of Hampton Roads moved a road through the Ottafaro's property when they
refused to sell, used only 18% of the property for the road and turned the remaining property
over to a developer who built a Bass Pro Shop and Texas Steak House and a Lowes. Transfer
of property from one private individual to another whom government deemed more
desirable. Kelo alive and well in Virginia before the infamous ruling.
In 1998, when the Griffith family chose not to sell their property to a developer for the price
offered, he threatened to have the property taken by the city, which soon happened. The town of
Suffolk took the Griffith's property by eminent domain and then sold it to the developer at the
price he had originally offered them. Transfer of property from one private individual to
another whom government found more desirable. Kelo alive and well in Virginia before the
infamous ruling.
In 1982, in Roanoke, the Redevelopment Housing Authority announced a redevelopment
project which they never completed, but which held the Claytor property under the cloud of
future condemnation for 20 years, making it essentially useless (un-sellable/un-rentable) to the
Claytors who nevertheless were required to continue to paying the taxes. During this time,
without notifying the Claytors of their plans or intentions, the Housing Authority entered
negotiations with a church to sell the property, which was still legally the Claytors. Transfer of
property from one private individual to another whom government found more desirable.
Kelo alive and well in Virginia before the infamous ruling.
In 2000 The Roanoke Housing Authority (RRHA) and The City entered into an agreement with
Carilion Health Systems, the largest employer in southwest Virginia, to build a biomedical park
on 110 acres between Carilion's two hospitals. Business owners who had operated in this
area for many years, first read their businesses were targeted to be taken in the Roanoke
Times. They then received letters saying the project was for "quality economic development
opportunities," and though their fully functioning businesses met all zoning requirements and
had never received prior notice of any problems or deficiencies, the Redevelopment Plan found
many buildings to be deteriorating and they were given the dubious designation of being
"blighted." This was a hard argument to make however, because directly across the street
were very similar buildings owned by the city which were excluded from The Plan. As in Kelo, a
stated objective of the plan was "increased tax revenue and job opportunitues." Unfortunately
a market analysis was not completed until over 2 years into the project and when completed, it
found earlier projections to be overly optimistic. Today, per agreement with RRHA, Carilion,
has since purchased all of Phase I, with the exception of one business still negotiating. But
competition for bio-tech firms, predicted in the analysis, has made recruiting businesses
difficult. Phase one was to be completed in 5 years, but 7 years later there is still mostly vacant
land where viable businesses once stood and the only construction currently taking place is
being done by Carilion on about 10% of their land. Transfer of private businesses to a large
corporation whom the government found more desirable. Kelo alive and well in Virginia before
the infameous ruling.
What happened in these cases is not uncommon in Virginia, so it is difficult to understand
how local governments, lobbyists, and developers convinced so many of the prople we
elected that Virginia Law does not allow Kelo and that property owners in Virginia do not
need legislation or a constitutional amendment. See Abuses
despite the general outrage across the state when US Supreme Court ruled in this case. Both
Democrats and Republicans promised reform.
What They Said:
Delegate William J. Howell Speaker of the House, Republican of Stafford VA
Flanked at a news conference by the entire House Republican Leadership and most
members of the House Republican Caucus, said: "Homeowners, entrepreneurs, churches
and non-profits across Virginia are rightly dismayed by the potential of having their private
property rights severely diminished – or their homes and small businesses confiscated
outright – because of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, which expanded the eminent
domain powers of governments. Citizens need to know that the majority they've elected to lead
the House of Delegates not only shares their concerns and opposes the Court's 5 to 4 ruling,
but that we will do what is necessary to ensure that property rights in Virginia are protected from
the effects of this misguided change in public policy. Here in the birthplace of America's
government, we are committed to ensuring that 'public use' shall continue to mean what it
says: a clearly understood, strictly limited definition that has served us well since our Nation's
founders approved the Bill of Rights over 225 years ago."
Senator Benjamin Lambert Chair of the Black Caucus, Democrat of Richmond
"said he fears the decision will harm minority homeowners most. "Through the years, blacks
in particular who have owned property have seen eminent domain come in and take it. I am
quite sure members of the Black Caucus will get together on this."
What They Did:
When the General Assembly met six months later however, very effective lobbying by local
governments, developers and condemning authorities had convinced the entire Black Caucus,
the Housing Commission, and the leadership of the General Assembly, as well as the Attorney
General and Governor, that Kelo type takings could not happen under Virginia Law and that
Virginia only needed to re-codify the current system to be sure property owners were protected.
Unfortunately, this was untrue as Kelo type takings were already taking place in Virginia before
the Kelo ruling. See Abuses
Years before Kelo, local governments were taking property from one person and making it
available to another person whom they deemed more desirable - often a developer, but not
always. In one case their effort was to take private property that had been in the same family
since the early 1900s and turn it over to a church, whom the government found more desirable.
In 2003 the town of Hampton Roads moved a road through the Ottafaro's property when they
refused to sell, used only 18% of the property for the road and turned the remaining property
over to a developer who built a Bass Pro Shop and Texas Steak House and a Lowes. Transfer
of property from one private individual to another whom government deemed more
desirable. Kelo alive and well in Virginia before the infamous ruling.
In 1998, when the Griffith family chose not to sell their property to a developer for the price
offered, he threatened to have the property taken by the city, which soon happened. The town of
Suffolk took the Griffith's property by eminent domain and then sold it to the developer at the
price he had originally offered them. Transfer of property from one private individual to
another whom government found more desirable. Kelo alive and well in Virginia before the
infamous ruling.
In 1982, in Roanoke, the Redevelopment Housing Authority announced a redevelopment
project which they never completed, but which held the Claytor property under the cloud of
future condemnation for 20 years, making it essentially useless (un-sellable/un-rentable) to the
Claytors who nevertheless were required to continue to paying the taxes. During this time,
without notifying the Claytors of their plans or intentions, the Housing Authority entered
negotiations with a church to sell the property, which was still legally the Claytors. Transfer of
property from one private individual to another whom government found more desirable.
Kelo alive and well in Virginia before the infamous ruling.
In 2000 The Roanoke Housing Authority (RRHA) and The City entered into an agreement with
Carilion Health Systems, the largest employer in southwest Virginia, to build a biomedical park
on 110 acres between Carilion's two hospitals. Business owners who had operated in this
area for many years, first read their businesses were targeted to be taken in the Roanoke
Times. They then received letters saying the project was for "quality economic development
opportunities," and though their fully functioning businesses met all zoning requirements and
had never received prior notice of any problems or deficiencies, the Redevelopment Plan found
many buildings to be deteriorating and they were given the dubious designation of being
"blighted." This was a hard argument to make however, because directly across the street
were very similar buildings owned by the city which were excluded from The Plan. As in Kelo, a
stated objective of the plan was "increased tax revenue and job opportunitues." Unfortunately
a market analysis was not completed until over 2 years into the project and when completed, it
found earlier projections to be overly optimistic. Today, per agreement with RRHA, Carilion,
has since purchased all of Phase I, with the exception of one business still negotiating. But
competition for bio-tech firms, predicted in the analysis, has made recruiting businesses
difficult. Phase one was to be completed in 5 years, but 7 years later there is still mostly vacant
land where viable businesses once stood and the only construction currently taking place is
being done by Carilion on about 10% of their land. Transfer of private businesses to a large
corporation whom the government found more desirable. Kelo alive and well in Virginia before
the infameous ruling.
What happened in these cases is not uncommon in Virginia, so it is difficult to understand
how local governments, lobbyists, and developers convinced so many of the prople we
elected that Virginia Law does not allow Kelo and that property owners in Virginia do not
need legislation or a constitutional amendment. See Abuses
| The Virginia Property Rights Coalition Dedicated to Reform of Virginia's Eminent Domain Laws |
| Web Master Click here to report issues involving the site |
| Delegate Joannou's Inspirational Speech and the House of Delegate's Full Kelo Debate |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Transfer of Private Property from Private Individual to Another: Kelo was Alive & Well in Virginia before the Infamous Ruling |