| 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 |
| Senator Ken Cuccinelli a Republican |
| Delegate Johnny Joannou a Democrat |
Delegate Joannou's Inspirational Speech and the House of Delegate's Kelo Debate |
Click link above
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 upon a floor challenge. The Republican
leadership strongly supported Delegate Suit and there was
little 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 to the surprise
of everyone, four Republicans (see below) then stood and
spoke in favor of his amendment.
Their courageous act, combined with Delegate Joannou's
speech, resulted in passage of the substitute amendment
and ultimately to defeat of the Suit language in the House.
Though the Senate, led by Senator Ken Stolle, continued to
support Delegate Suit's language, 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 upon a floor challenge. The Republican
leadership strongly supported Delegate Suit and there was
little 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 to the surprise
of everyone, four Republicans (see below) then stood and
spoke in favor of his amendment.
Their courageous act, combined with Delegate Joannou's
speech, resulted in passage of the substitute amendment
and ultimately to defeat of the Suit language in the House.
Though the Senate, led by Senator Ken Stolle, continued to
support Delegate Suit's language, the House of Delegates
stood firm for property owners.
| Senator (D) John Edwards |
| Senator (R) Brandon Bell |
Delegates Hogan, Gear, Marshall, and Ware, supported
the Joannou amendment because it 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 95% of all
eminent domain projects. Because of these 5 speeches,
the members of 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 after the courageous
four spoke, the first vote was 51to 47 for the Joannou
amendment. These 51 votes led to the unanimous victory.
They were cast by Delegates: Athey, Bell, Bowling, Carrico,
Cline, Cole, Cosgrove, Cox, Crockett-Stark, 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.
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.
the Joannou amendment because it 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 95% of all
eminent domain projects. Because of these 5 speeches,
the members of 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 after the courageous
four spoke, the first vote was 51to 47 for the Joannou
amendment. These 51 votes led to the unanimous victory.
They were cast by Delegates: Athey, Bell, Bowling, Carrico,
Cline, Cole, Cosgrove, Cox, Crockett-Stark, 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.
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) Clark Hogan |
| Delegate (R)Tom Gear |
| Delegate (R) Bob Marshall |
| Delegate (R)Lee Ware |
More...........
The General Assembly failed to pass legislation to protect Virginians from the Kelo decision
despite general outrage when the decision came down from the US Supreme Court, and
promises of protection from the Republican leadership, including the Attorney General, the
Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate.
House of Delegates Speaker, William J. Howell (R-Stafford), 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."
When the General Assembly met six months later however, very effective lobbying by local
governments, developers and condemning authorities had convinced 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 not true as Kelo takings were already taking place in Virginia.
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.
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. Transfer of property
from one private individual to another whom government deemed more desirable.
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.
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 before the infamous ruling.
In 2000 the city of Roanoke entered into an agreement with Carilion Health Care to build a
biomedical park in an older non-blighted, light industrial area. Over 30 active businesses were
taken by eminent domain to make way for this Redevelopment Project. Unfortunately, no one in
government had done a feasibility study prior to confiscating these properties and when the
study was complete, because of unrecognized competition from Virginia Tech, the University of
Virginia, and various medical facilities in North Carolina, prospects for the project's future
success were found to be questionable. Phase one of this multi-million dollar "taxpayer's
fiasco" was to be completed in five years but as of June 2006, Carillion's incomplete building
is the only one under construction on this now mostly vacant, bulldozed land which is now for
sale for private development. Transfer of property from one private individual to another
whom government found more desirable.
These types of abuses are not uncommon, so it is difficult to understand how lobbyists
convinced so many of our elected leaders that Virginia Law would not allow Kelo and that
property owners in Virginia do not need legislative protection.
| Web Master Click here to report issues involving the site |
| The Virginia Property Rights Coalition Dedicated to Reform of Virginia's Eminent Domain Laws |
| Transfer of Private Property from Private Individual to Another: Kelo was Alive & Well in Virginia before the Infamous Ruling |