Tag search result

House lawmakers are reviving an effort to put a constitutional amendment before voters that prohibits governments from taking private property for economic development through eminent domain.

The amendment -- approved by a House committee Wednesday and headed to the full House next -- would appear on the November 2014 ballot. Other provisions would make changes to state law effective upon passage. The House passed a similar version in the previous legislative session by a wide margin but the Senate didn't vote on the legislation.

"It will not stop all eminent domain but it would stop the parts of it that violate the property rights," said Rep. Paul "Skip" Stam, an Apex Republican.

The legislature may consider changes to the state constitution Thursday.

A House bill filed this afternoon would allow the legislature to expand its redistricting/ veto override/election laws session to include constitutional amendments.

The three constitutional amendments they'll deal with are eminent domain, term limits for the House Speaker and Senate leader, and making the state Superintendent of Public Instruction the chairman of the State Board of Education.

Constitutional amendments must receive 3/5th votes in each chamber to get on a ballot for voters. 

State Republicans wrote a list of the eight things they'll do in the first 100 days of the legislative session if they win majorities in the state House and Senate this election.

Rep. Paul Stam, an Apex Republican and the House minority leader, thinks the House can pass a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit the government's use of eminent domain within a week, if not a day.

The bill has passed the House twice, only to get bottled up in the Senate. The N.C. League of Municipalities has opposed the bill. Stam has championed the idea for years.

"The House has already seen it five times," he said. "I believe we could pass that if not the first day, the first week."

Legislative committees aren't appointed that quickly, but Stam said it's worth considering making a special committee of all House members so they can vote right away.

After years of trying, Rep. Paul "Skip" Stam appears likely to get a bill passed in the state House requiring a statewide referendum on a proposed amendment to the state Constitution restricting the government's ability to seize private property.

Stam, an Apex lawyer who is the Republican leader in the House, has long championed the bill, which would prohibit the government from using eminent domain for the purpose of selling the property for economic development. The amendment would also establish in the constitution that government can't take property without just compensation.

The bill passed its second reading in the House Monday night by a comfortable margin of 100-14, after surprisingly little debate.

If it passes a third vote Tuesday, the bill will head to the state Senate, where its odds of passage could be helped by last year's departure of longtime Majority Leader Tony Rand, who had opposed the measure in past legislative sessions.

If approved, voters would see the proposed amendment on their ballots in November 2012.

Will Sen. Tony Rand's departure from the legislature mean that the bill seeking to limit local government's use of eminent domain will have a big Senate shoe lifted from its neck?

Rep. Paul Stam, an Apex Republiican and House minority leader, hopes that with Rand gone, the bill might have DOA erased from its margins.

How much would it matter?

Tyler Mulligan, an assistant professor of public law and government at the N.C. School of Government, writes that the amendment wouldn't much change current practices.

You can read Mulligan's post on the topic on the School of Government blog.

The departure of state Sen. Tony Rand has a lot of people wondering how the Senate will operate without the powerful master of rules, legislative maneuvers and hard-ball politics.

It even has state Rep. Paul Stam wondering if he'll finally get a favorite bill passed in the Senate. Stam, an Apex Republican and the chamber's minority leader, told Dome the other day that this could be the year that he gets a hearing in the Senate on a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit the government's use of eminent domain.

Stam just happened to have a copy of the bill with him, leading Dome to wonder if he carries it wherever he goes. The bill, which would prohibit the use of eminent domain if land would then be sold for economic development, didn't clear the House this year, but Stam said the Senate, and particularly Rand, have been the major obstacle in past years.

Dome asked whether Rand was the impediment or whether Rand was carrying out the wishes of the Democratic majority.

"That's what we'll find out," Stam said.

The House sent a proposed constitutional amendment restricting condemnations back to committee.

The amendment would prohibit the government from taking property through eminent domain for the purpose of selling the property for economic development. The amendment would also establish in the constitution that government can't take property without just compensation.

"It is a universal desire of all people in all cultures and all places that they want their property secure from a taking by the governmet or a taking by anybody," said Rep. Paul Stam, a co-sponsor of the bill and an Apex Republican.

House members said the bill should be taken off the House floor because Stam offered amendments to the bill.

"It just bothers me that we have a bill on the floor to amend the constitution and we're going to amend it at the last minute," said Rep. Ronnie Sutton, a Pembroke Democrat.

Stam said his amendments were minor and not unusual and were being used as an excuse by opponents to kill the bill.

The House voted 60 to 56 to send the bill back to committee.

How should you title a bill on a controversial subject?

Another strategy: Don't say what you're doing.

As noted previously, one strategy is to give your bill either a heroic or bland title that gives no indication of its subject matter. But in some cases, you can mention the subject, as long as you leave out a crucial verb:

Eminent Domain: Compensate nonprofits whose properties are taken by the government at a higher price than fair-market value.

Access to Higher Education: Prohibit state colleges and community colleges from asking students whether they are illegal immigrants.

Modify Charter School Law: Among other things, change the cap on charter schools to allow six more to open each year.

The third bill is especially instructive when compared to titles of other bills that would raise or eliminate the cap on charter schools: Raise Cap on Charter Schools, Eliminate the Cap on Charter Schools, Remove Cap on the Number of Charter Schools and Increase Cap on Charter Schools.

Similar, but still more direct: Allow Charter Schools in 100 Counties.

A few recent Senate bills of note:

S.B. 131: Penalty for DWI Conviction/BAC .20 or Higher, Sen. Don Vaughan

S.B. 137: Military Death / In-State Tuition / Dependant, Sen. Neal Hunt

S.B. 138: Salvia Divinorum Schedule I, Sen. Bill Purcell

S.B. 147: Tax Credit for Energy-Efficient Homes, Sen. A.B. Swindell

S.B. 155: Community Colleges Can't Admin Illegal Aliens, Sen. Phil Berger

S.B. 157: Eminent Domain, Sen. Phil Berger

House Minority Leader Paul Stam gives the session a mixed report card.

The Apex Republican said he was satisfied with his party's ability to block objectionable bills, though he wishes that more of it's bills got a chance to be heard. His grades:

Stopping Bills: A. Stam was glad that minority Republicans were able to block a tax on small businesses to pay for a high-risk insurance pool and a bullying bill that included references to sexual orientation as well as several proposed tax rate increases.

"Basically, they were unwilling to pass any new taxes because we had the votes," he said.

Passing Bills: D. He was upset that Democrats didn't allow a constitutional amendment to limit eminent domain and a tax credit for special-needs children to attend private school or be home-schooled to be voted on.

"They just don't bring our bills up for a vote," he said.

Legislative Process: B+. Stam said that about seven times this session the Democratic leadership called for a vote on a bill or amendment without a debate, including major votes such as the 2007 state budget and bills on the death penalty.

"Under (disgraced former Speaker) Jim Black, that would have happened about 70 times," he said. "There's been a vast improvement but the majority is still using its ability to stifle debate."

Correction: An earlier version of this post misstated two pieces of legislation.