RECENT COMMENTS
JessOfRVA on then it happens to you...
Becky Metzler on Updated! Guess what's happening on Mosby/Venable?
Mary on then it happens to you...
Sid on then it happens to you...
Becky Metzler on Church Hill Startup Tackles Insurance for Freelancers
Neighbor on then it happens to you...
Dan Rooney on then it happens to you...
There will be 2 constitutional amendments on the ballot Tuesday
11/05/2012 8:06 AM by John M
Two constitutional amendments will be on the ballot tomorrow. Waldo Jaquith the best explanation of these proposed amendments that I’ve been able to find.
TAGGED: election
My understanding of the first amendment: it would prohibit cities and the state from taking over properties if those properties are clearly abandoned and pose a danger to the community. Some cities have used eminent domain to take over homes that are about to be foreclosed, which somehow allows the homeowner to stay there. I don’t think this would have an impact on eminent domain in general – if they’re building a highway through your house you’re SOL. That’s why I voted against the amendment.
Max, that is incorrect. The bill allows cities to take steps to correct nuisances. If not, I’d agree with you.
I’m not sure if I agree with the linked article – yes, there are some laws on the books that should already accomplish what this is intended to do. However, the legislature must feel that these aren’t enough. If folks vote this down, who’s to say that they won’t see that as consent for Kelo type abuses?
Believe me, our city would love the opportunity to hook up their developer buddies even more.
The reason to vote “No” for the first amendment is that it only allows the state to take properties for public use. That is, it limits what government can do.
See the Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/posts-endorsement-vote-no-on-ballot-question-1-in-va/2012/11/01/62636726-1c8e-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_singlePage.html?tid=obinsite
“The reason to vote “No” for the first amendment is that it only allows the state to take properties for public use. That is, it limits what government can do.”
Hmm. I would argue that this is exactly why you’d vote “Yes.” Do we really want unchecked government?
I’m in favor of the general intent of this amendment, but I am voting against it because I do not think politicians should be using the constitution to gain political points and all this is is an attempt to make themselves look pro-property rights without bothering to do proper research and carefully consider the ramifications of such a change.
Color me confused. That link Amy posted made much more sense than any of these comments (including Amy’s) assuming it’s right.
This is a problem when everyone interprets this thing differently. I’d feel reckless to vote on a bill without the confidence that i understand it.
It’s settled at this point so this is somewhat moot but if such a measure ever comes up for consideration again, found an excellent article about why we should be glad that Prop 1 passed:
http://reason.com/archives/2012/11/07/opponents-of-virginias-eminent-domain-ba#comment