On the recordDecember 13, 2007
fellow Senators, this is a fundamental private property rights vote. This is what is happening across America. This is what is happening across America in a post-Kelo decision. Counties and cities are oftentimes reaching out into farm country, condemning land, and holding it as open space when it is already open space, and this amendment speaks to that. Sandra Day O'Connor, in her dissent against Kelo v. New London, said this: The fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The American Farm Bureau, the American National Cattleman's and Beef Growers, and the National Public Lands Council support this amendment. If the Judiciary Committee had responded, and I hoped they would have, we would have a much broader definition as it relates to Kelo and as it relates to the right for eminent domain. Clearly, the public good is not damaged because entities still have the right for the public good, and that has always been the purpose of eminent domain. But simply to acquire property through condemnation when it is open space, to hold it as open space and to deny the private property owner his or her rights is fundamentally wrong under our Constitution.
Source
govinfo.gov




