On the recordFebruary 28, 2012
I reluctantly rise in opposition to the measure before us, the so- called Private Property Rights Protection Act. Now, while the goal of this legislation to protect property owners and tenants from the abuse of eminent domain is laudable and important, it would, in reality, supplant the work States have already done to respond to the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. The City of New London in the 7 years since the Court handed down that decision. Most importantly, whatever the concerns my colleagues may have about the Kelo decision, the use and abuse of the power of eminent domain, I hope that every Member would look very carefully at the penalty it will impose on States, counties, cities, and towns across the country. Even if they never take a single piece of property, even if a jurisdiction never uses eminent domain at all, the mere possibility that some future administration would use eminent domain in a prohibited manner would cast a permanent cloud over the jurisdiction's finances. The risk of the catastrophic penalties being imposed over the life of a 10-year or 20-year bond would be enough to destroy or mitigate a city or State's ability to float bonds at any time for any reason. At the very least, our cities and States would be forced to pay a risk premium that would make us envy Greece.…





