HF 2351 And Local Control
The Des Moines Register reports this morning on HF 2351 which passed the Iowa House on an 83-15 vote yesterday.
The Iowa House late Wednesday approved legislation to put greater restrictions on the power local governments have to take private property for public purposes.House File 2351 is a response to last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled governments can use so-called eminent domain to spur business development.
...
City and county leaders warn that the proposed changes would dramatically hold back their abilities to encourage economic growth.
The full text of the bill is available through the Iowa Legislature website. Something to note in the bill – this action should not effect the most important use of eminent domain power:
2 17 2. a. “Public use”, “public purpose”, or “public 2 18 improvement” means one or more of the following: .... 2 29 (5) The acquisition of property in that portion of an 2 30 urban renewal area designated as a slum or blighted area if 2 31 each parcel, or any improvements thereon, for which 2 32 condemnation is sought is determined by the governing body of 2 33 the municipality to be in a slum or blighted condition. 2 34 However, for a project or acquisition plan adopted by the 2 35 governing body of a city or county after due deliberation and 3 1 public input, if seventy=five percent or more of the assessed 3 2 value of the property included in the plan consists of 3 3 property that is determined to be in a slum or blighted 3 4 condition at the time the plan was established, the entire 3 5 project or acquisition plan area is subject to condemnation by 3 6 the municipality.
What doesn’t seem to be addressed: the ability for cities and counties to use eminent domain as part of a “deal” between local governments and property owners to relieve blight – that is, the abilty to offer incentives to improve properties on the condition that “ownership” is dependent upon making such improvements.
From the Register, there is also another aspect to consider:
“There are aspects of this bill,” Bergman said, “that would quite frankly promote urban sprawl. There are certainly aspects of this bill that will make the property acquisition process more expensive for property taxpayers.”
I understand the motives behind limiting eminent domain completely – a city government should not be in the business of forcing the transfer of land ownership from one private owner to another. On the other hand, a city government must also be empowered to make decisions in planning for the future of the community. In Iowa especially, the powers of local governments have been drastically curtailed through court actions. Two primary examples:
1) The Worth County Hog Ordinance
Iowa farmers will not be required to comply with a patchwork of county-specific environmental laws, thanks to an October 6 ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court. In a decision invalidating laws enacted in five Iowa counties, the court determined only the state has the constitutional right to pass environmental measures.
After two years of fighting, the Ames smoking ordinance has been ruled not enforceable.
In August 2001, the city of Ames enacted an ordinance prohibiting smoking in all Ames restaurants between the hours of 6 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. Eight restaurants sued, claiming the ordinance conflicted with Iowa Code.The Iowa Supreme Court ruled in favor of the restaurants on May 7.
The court based its ruling on a 1990 amendment to the Iowa Code, which states state laws pertaining to smoking in public places “supersede any local law or regulation which is inconsistent with or conflicts with the provisions of this chapter.”
In both cases, the ruling was identical: local governments have no ability to supercede a weaker state regulation. So far in the legislative session, we’ve seen three hot button topics: smoking bans, eminent domains and expanded gambling. These issues are important in and of themselves – but they are brought on entirely by one overriding question: what powers do local governments have in determining the future of their own communities?
By the actions of the Iowa Legislature, the answer is obviously “none at all”.
- Sousy