This unelected committee can pass its own by-laws. And once created, the special district exists for 35 years before the host community can dissolve it. In many ways, it would be like a separate municipality created within a real municipality.
The Boston Herald called it a “sleeper bill”.
One legislator complained that “It’s never been given a number, heard, and sent through our process. It was a section written outside of this building by special interests and placed in the economic stimulus bill.”
Governor Romney vetoed the measure because it had not followed due process.
Such erosion of local democracy needs to be fully discussed, not snuck into law without a full public hearing.
Time is short. The House has already voted to override the Governor’s veto. The Senate will soon take up the veto. Senators need to be told that they should let the Governor’s veto stand.
For more information and to see the full text of Chapter 40T, go to http://www.masschc.o…. But call soon, because the override vote could take place today (Monday).
Thanks!
are hoping that a whip determines there’s not enough votes for the override and that it never comes up for a vote.
Here is the barely successful override roll-call from the House. Many of the most progressive legislators voted “no” (i.e., they voted to sustain Romney’s veto).
<
p>
Full Bill Text, direct link
<
p>
The ‘committee’ formed pursuant to this Bill, appears to give eminent domain power ONLY “with the approval of the municiple governing body.” So, if I’m reading it correctly, the Town, City…would have to intiate the emminent domain proceeding. The decision would ultimately require the decision (i.e. vote) of an elected official.
<
p>
It’s a very Liberal perspective, right? Government deciding what’s best for the collective good even if that involves taking Grandma’s house to build a lovely shopping plaza.
<
p>
It’s Kelo v. New London
<
p>
Come on. Admit it. You can see it happening in Lowell, Larwence, your backyard. Your elected official’s vote.
<
p>
It’s a decision that Conservative unanimously oppose and opposed and a decision that left the Left in a schizophrenic conundrum: torn between allowing government broad imminent domain power versus exercising that power in favor of private interests.
<
p>
So, here you are: Romney is true to his Conservative colours and vetos the Bill. What will the Liberal Legislature do?
<
p>
Ever head the story of the frog and the scorpion?
<
p>
They’ll override, if given the chance. It’s their nature.
<
p>
Then the residents of Mass will own Kelo, and deserve it.
It’s a very Liberal perspective, right? Government deciding what’s best for the collective good even if that involves taking Grandma’s house to build a lovely shopping plaza.
<
p>
So let me get this straight: you think that the government working with private corporate special interests to grab land is a liberal perspective?
<
p>
You mean like selling out to mining companies? Drilling companies? Logging companies? That’s land owned by all grandmas, not just the one you’re thinking of. The Dems do that, right? Nope. That’s what the Republicans do.
<
p>
Note that I wrote GOP and not conservative. Land grabs for corporate profit is not a conservative stance. It’s not really a liberal stance either. It’s the stance of foolish politicians in the pockets of greed, and unfortunately it’s an equal opportunity infection.
<
p>
Don’t mix privitization with eminent domain. This Bill doesn’t involve privitization. Beside, if we were talking privitization, I’m sure we’d disagree.
<
p>
But, in a odd conservative/liberal confluence, we agree. That because we’re talking eminent domain and private property rights: 40T and Kelo.
<
p>
Broad use of government power versus individual property rights. Liberal v. Conservative values.
<
p>
Dems don’t do that you say? Did you see the vote to override 40T?! They may not do it, but they did it.
<
p>
Liberal don’t do that? Did you see the NYT op-ed following Kelo:
NYT may not do that but endorsed it in their op-ed.
<
p>
NYT not liberal enough for you? How about the American Prospect, authoritative magazine of liberal ideas:
<
p>
Look, I’m totally opposed to 40T and Kelo and totally supportive of statutory protection limiting the use of eminent domain.
<
p>
Apparently, so are you.
<
p>
Your Conservative Republican sitting Govenor has saved you with his veto, at least temporarily, from your Liberal Democratic Legislature. With that “I support abortion rights but not partial birth abortion” thinking, you too don’t want to see the might of government take Grandma’s home and give it to a capitalist.
<
p>
And I endorse your view.
I pointed out that there’s no pro stance for 40T amoung liberal or conservative philosophy, but that there are both individual Dems and individual GOPs guilty of having that pro stance.
<
p>
The most liberal reps tended to not override the veto, as was pointed out earlier.
<
p>
This seems like a classic case of far left and far right teaming up to fight the middle. This often shows up on civil liberties issues (both distrust government power) and occasionally on property rights issues like this one.
Following Kelo, voters sliced the New London “We’d never do that we’re Democrats” City Council Democrat majority from three to one and missed removing one incumbent Democrat seat by 19 votes.
<
p>
The 109 to 43 vote on the 40T override speaks for itself.
BMG has long been squarely in the anti-Kelo camp. I was never prouder of my former boss (Justice O’Connor) than when I read her dissent in that case.
I suspect your stance on this issue depends on where you live. If you live in an affluent community, then it is absolutely abhorrent to believe that the government should be allowed to take your land and give it to a developer so that the town can realize better use of it.
<
p>
But try living next to this:
<
p>
<
p>
Or maybe this:
<
p>
<
p>
And you’d be clamoring to have the government step in on top of someone’s “individual property right” to do what they want with their land.
<
p>
Admittedly the first one above is an extreme example, because the city has powers to order the razing of such a building. But what happens when someone boards up their building in accordance with laws (like the second example), and simply does nothing with it for years and years? Perhaps its their right to do this, but that boarded-up building has a significant effect on the neighborhood. It can even affect a neighbor’s chances of getting fire insurance.
<
p>
I don’t like the idea that a corporation could come in and make a deal with local legislators to redevelop a neighborhood. I don’t like the idea of the nuclear-bomb way “urban renewal” was performed in the past. But I like the idea of stripping local officials of the power to address issues of blight and unoccupied, mothballed buildings even less.
<
p>
From what I read on Kelo, if they ruled the other way it would have spelled the end of blight-fighting eminent domain.
In the New London case, and in Boston’s West End before that, people were forced to leave perfectly sound buildings that they were living in.
<
p>
The two buildings you show here are clearly uninhabited and uninhabitable. If we are to use eminent domain to deal with ‘blight’, this is a distinction the law should take note of.
MA law has lots of provisions allowing eminent domain to get rid of “decadent” and “substandard” structures, which is exactly what the ones posted above are. No changes in law are necessary to deal with problems like those.
But that urban-renewal law was used to demolish Boston’s entire West End neighborhood, by deeming it to be blighted, substandard, and decadent — even though it was actually fully occupied by people who wanted to remain there.
It can be, and has been, abused. Doesn’t mean we should get rid of it – if anything, it should be strengthened by being made more restrictive. See the post I just put up about Kelo issues.
I agree that passing any bill of this complexity without public hearings is a very bad idea, and the veto should be upheld. However, even a cursory reading of 40T makes it clear that the description of the bill providing by the Mass. Coaltion is inaccurate. The Special Development Districts can be created only with the approval of the city or town in which they are located, and only after a petition is filed by persons owning at least 80% of the real property in the district.
<
p>
The initial members of the committee must be owners of property in the district. After their initial terms of office, new members of the committee must be appointed by local government (Selectmen or City Council, etc.). The district cannot be created until there has been a public hearing on the improvement plan. After public process, the petition to create the district goes before the City Council, or Town Meeting, as applicable. Yes, the prudential committee can acquire property by eminent domain–but only with the approval of the municipal governing body.
<
p>
Now, I’m not arguing that this bill is good or bad–but the bill clearly does not do everything the Coaltion says it does. The apparent purpose of this bill is to allow private landowners to propose a detailed, specific improvement plan, and to create a municipal authority that would have the power to borrow money to implement the plan, and to agree to pay “betterments” (i.e. tax themselves) outside the limits of propostion two and a half. With public hearings, and a bit of tweaking, this could be turned into a very good law that would allow government to work with willing landowners to finance improvements in creative ways.
Additionally, this bill has little to do with Kelo, the significance of which was so incorrectly blown out of proportion by right and left alike in the first place.
<
p>
I think the best argument against 40T is that it didn’t go through the normal public hearing process (a legitimate argument). Otherwise, it’s not too much different than existing business development districts and the like that have been successfully employed elsewhere.
Westwood: there’s a very large development going in down there. If the town approved at 40T proposal, could that whole area be basically run by the developer – i.e. give itself permits, obtain funding, etc.? I need to read the bill in detail, but if that’s the case, then is that efficient development, or an excessive delegation of authority to private enterprise?
<
p>
what other projects could benefit from this in and around Boston?
As I stated in my first posting, it DOES require the cooperation of the Municipality for the eminent domain action, but there is no prohibition that the ‘Taking’ won’t be used for private interest. Only a showing of ‘blighted’ need be shown: Grandma’s old house, the old neighborhood. If they’re ‘blighted’ and the Town wants it to turn it over to a private land development, it’s takin’ time.
<
p>
Same as Kelo.
“…there is no prohibition that the ‘Taking’ won’t be used for private interest.”
<
p>
This statement of yours indicates to me that you, along with many on the left and right alike, completely misread Kelo.
<
p>
For starters, similar powers of government have been used for many, many decades (going back to the Supreme Court green-lighting use of eminent domain for railroads and stadiums, both run by private entities). Kelo is a marginal exention of existing law, not a major shake-up.
<
p>
Further, eminent domain cannot “be used for private interest”. In the New London scenario the city had to argue that its taking was for public use (what the court called “public purposes”, but there is no legal distinction). The government simply cannot take private property for any purpose whatsoever — I don’t know where people are getting this from.
Public Use = Public park or roadway, for use by general public.
<
p>
Public PURPOSE = Private development like shopping mall, PERHAPS for use of general public, but true public purpose is expanded tax base.
<
p>
You wanna sell out Granny like that?
I assume you’d like to throw out decades of eminent domain jurisprudence? That’s fine, but the opposite opinion in Kelo that you’re looking for would have shaken things up indeed, and would have been quite the example of judicial activism.
<
p>
I also assume you completely disagree with those libertarian-conservatives that think that it would be a good idea to hand over public highways and other public services to the private sector. After all, much of that land was taken by eminent domain.
Road building and maintenance do not spring to mind as one of them.
<
p>
The Central Artery was taken by eminent domain by Mayor Curley, who did NOT compensate those whose houses were taken.