NH Passes Eminent Domain Amendment

Not especially surprised that this passed.

CANTERBURY, N.H. (AP) — Voters overwhelmingly decided Tuesday to amend the state constitution to bar government from taking private property from one landowner so another could develop it.

With 254 of the 301 precincts reporting, 86% voted to approve the change.

Only 86% support? That is odd. I suppose that means that 14% of the state population are imbeciles.

News on the overall findings on eminent domain are pretty vague at this point, though it appears that nine states have approved some restriction of eminent domain.

Of course, the MSM reports that eminent domain takings are rare. Not really sure why I would care about that.

However, an analyst from a libertarian think tank responded that such a view "clearly doesn't square with reality."

"Eminent domain has become the nation's most legislated and emotionally inflamed property rights issue, with 30 of the nation's state legislatures passing new eminent domain laws in the last year and more legislation on the way," said David Lewis, founder of Houston-based Lewis Realty Advisors, in a statement.

Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon and South Carolina have measures on the midterm election ballot to diminish the use of eminent domain.

"Most of the new laws are designed to prevent eminent domain acquisitions that improperly deliver properties to private developers via the use of condemnation proceedings," Lewis noted, adding that "these new laws won't come into play very often."

"I would not say all of these state legislators were wasting their time," he said. "But if you take a balanced look at the thousands of eminent domain cases that have occurred over the years, this power to take land has not been abused very often."

What a surprise, a statement from a Realty company calling eminent domain an inflamed and emotional issue. I don't understand why Lewis believes that there is any relevance to the amount of times that legislation would be enforced with regards to the protections that are desired by the people. Rarity of use doesn't mean that the protection isn't necessary.

Fortunately, the response of a majority of the votes indicate that the people don't want to have their property taken for anything but the most public of uses.