Thank you for writing about these before the polls!

This article does not begin to cover the issue. Approval of this amendment would leave the state responsible for millions of dollars in compensation when businesses are affected by road construction. For a full review of this issue see the Washington Post's Outlook section in last Sunday's paper. Both sides of the issue get equal space to make their case.

Since I voted in Sept. and there is no publicity about these issues, it's too little, too late. Why do I know more about MD's issues than the ones here that affect me?

This is easy.
Republicans support Question 1 because they believe in the primacy and sovereignty of the individual making the issue of "private property" the most important consideration. The thing people own is their wages as a result of employment-that entity that enables the acquisition of all other property. The concept of limited government is the civilized agreement that each person fund those things that cannot be done by individuals, such as national defense.
Democrats, led by Barak "you didn't build that" Obama do not support this amendment because it would impede their philosophy and curtail their activity of wealth and property re-distribution in order to buy votes.

Thanks for posting Patch People!

An excellent article about Question 1: Eminent Domain Law Changes can be found here: http://valocalitylaw.com/2012/02/02/proposed-constitutional-amendment-on-eminent-domain-cons-and-pros/

One big problem is that we are not voting on the actual amendment text. I will post the actual text of the amendment in the next comment.

Copying and pasting from the referenced article.

The actual constitutional amendment states in significant part:

“That the General Assembly shall pass no law whereby private property, the right to which is fundamental, shall be damaged or taken except for public use. No private property shall be damaged or taken for public use without just compensation to the owner thereof. No more private property may be taken than necessary to achieve the stated public use. Just compensation shall be no less than the value of the property taken, lost profits and lost access, and damages to the residue caused by the taking. The term “lost profits” and “lost access” are to be defined by the General Assembly. A public service company, public service corporation, or railroad exercises the power of eminent domain for public use when such exercise is for the authorized provision of utility, common carrier, or railroad services. In all other cases, a taking or damaging of private property is not for public use if the primary use is for private gain, private benefit, private enterprise, increasing jobs, increasing tax revenue, or economic development, except for the elimination of a public nuisance existing on the property. The condemnor bears the burden of proving that the use is public, without a presumption that it is.”

Compare this with the language of the ballot question.

I have a problem with the portion "The term “lost profits” and “lost access” are to be defined by the General Assembly."

Continuing to quote from the article:
"“Lost profits” are not real property and therefore not part of the condemned property. They are incidental costs to a landowner’s business and very difficult to discern given the variety of factors in determining a profit. “Lost access” is typically not real property, either, as a landowner only has a right to “reasonable” access to a public street. The government’s police power to provide for safe, effective transportation for the public trumps any particular mode or route of access. The proposed amendment may make these non-realty business interests compensable in a taking of land for the first time."

My cynical side wonders who is waiting in the wings to benefit from being compensated for these potential new damages.

The right to private property is a basic fundamental right I agree. It is very clear that eminent domain has been used and abused by government officials for a whole array of purposes other than what is a legitimate " public use " This amendment will reign in these abuses and make certain that people are fairly compensated. Vote yes! 11-06-12

In response to Lilguy's post: "And, besides, when was the last time eminent domain was used in Fairfax County? It's a political killer even now."

Just a few weeks ago Reston Association deeded over a small parcel of our common land to Fairfax County. If they hadn't done it willingly, the county would have taken the land by eminent domain. A few years ago another parcel of RA common land was transferred to Fairfax County up on Route 7.

In both of these cases the county needed the land for public use. When the constitutional amendment is passed eminent domain will still be available to counties, cities, school boards, development authorities to seize property for public use.

The constitutional amendment will insure that the landowners whose land is taken are paid what the land is worth and that it is being taken for a true public use and not for private development.

Should the owners of the Reston National golf course prevail and get the zoning they want to redevelop residential units on their land, the county or VDOT will not be able to seize easements from surrounding neighborhoods to build roads into the new private development.

It's sad that this has been politicized. This is not a political issue. It's a property rights issue. And it boils down to whether or not you want the county/state to be able to steal your property and not pay you what it's worth. Pretty simple actually.

Kathy Kaplan

Thanks, Patch folks, for posting this important info. Eminent Domain must have limited parameters. Allowing creeping Eminent Domain for alleged "public benefit" is a big mistake. Voting Yes!

Some questions I have regarding Question 1: If it's probably unconstitutional, how much taxpayer money would go to defend it in court? Also, given Northern Virginia's traffic problem, if they were to expand I-66 or any other traffic laden road, wouldn't Question 1 cause problems in the expansion?

I don't know if these were answered in the Washington Post articles that were posted above.

Question 1 provides for an elevated calculation of damages only for takings from business enterprises, not from private citizens. Utility and railroad easements (which are conferred by other provisions of law) are the most common state-conferred uses of eminent domain rights, and are essentially unaffected -- and damages calculations in those cases are left to the Corporation Commission, which is essentially "captive" to the handful of utilities and railroads that it nominally regulates. Question 2 incents the legislative leadership to pre-cook the results of the veto session, which is supposed to be a nearly-immediate reaction for the purpose of providing a check against the power of the executive. Neither of these two referenda questions speaks to the interests of Alexandria.

What % is necessary to pass question 1? (I couldn't find the answer on the VA website)
What are the deficiencies of the current VA law that make a constitutional amendment necessary? If there are deficiencies, why not just fix the deficiencies in the current law?

The basis for this law is to prevent developers from obtaining "discount land" and property. People should vote for it, not against it.

The only people that will be outraged will be the developers "special interest" candidates, such as Gerry Connolly and Cathy Hudgins (to name a few), and such people are not limited to one political party.

This came to light years ago when developers in other states used excuses like "increased employment" as an excuse for seizing land at discount rates, based essentially on nothing more than conjecture (such as the infamous developer excuse "If we build it, they will come.")

Ask yourself this: We have a building at the intersection of Sunrise Valley, Hunter Mill, and the toll road that's been sitting unoccupied for over 10 years. This was built on speculation that it would fill up. How would anyone like it if someone like Hudgins had seized their homes via eminent domain to build this monumnent to overdevelopment only to see it sitting completely empty for years.

The **only** people fighting for this are developers and their "agents" in the government. If your house is going to be taken from you, it should be for a justifiable reason, not speculated growth that may or may not occur, and you should be paid fairly for it ... not 30% of its value.

Everyone should vote to approve this amendment. Doing otherwise will only make your homes a savory target for developers.

Thank you all for an informative discussion.
With or without the amendment, it sounds as if there may be many disputes that mediators could help people resolve. (Not me. I help couples and ex-couples solve family problems. Other mediators handle business disputes with people who are not members of one's family.)

Sad we have to vote to push back a session 1 week.

Even in Fort Lee, NJ our Mayor and Council are pushing out business owners for developers. Here, our town's leadership decided to purchase a $2Million piece of land to allow a major developement company to better occupy the land for a mixed use project.

Now our taxes increase because our town decided to buy a bank which occupies the land and to turn it into a park for the developer to use as an entry to their site. Why isn't the developer buying this bank? Why are the taxpayers de-facto property investors?

Your article here is so similar to our situation. Please comment if you see the similarities: http://fortlee.patch.com/articles/fort-lee-to-acquire-main-street-property-for-2m-to-build-park