(Ms. Susan Rambo is a lady from Sen. Tapp?s office from whom I received several emails regarding efforts to protect private property in Kentucky in light of recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, and in light of cases of American?s across the country losing their land to greedy politicians who are practicing what has been called ?reverse Robinhood-ism.? That is, stealing from the poor to give to the rich. I shall send this in email format to Sen. Tapp as well.

Following my story on what is being done in Indiana to combat this unconstitutional practice, I contacted my own state officials to see what is being done to prevent the same from happening here in my beloved Bluegrass.

If anyone is interested in seeing the information I have obtained, and links to the bills which she sent me, leave a comment, and I will try to respond as quickly as possible. Thanks--Mike)

Ms. Rambo:

In reading the information which you sent me regarding HB 108, I am confused on a number of levels, as my knowledge of legalese is fairly limited, so please forgive my ignorance when it shows.

Obviously a layman's translation would be very helpful, but I dare not ask you to perform such an extensive and time-consuming task such as that, as you would likely never correspond with me again!

Under Section I, subsection 3 of KRS 416.540 TO 416.670, it states the following:

3) (a) It is a "qualified public use" to exercise the power of eminent domain for
the acquisition of property:
1. For public ownership and control by the public entity; and
2. For a public purpose.
(b) It is not a "qualified public use" to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire property for private ownership or control, including for economic development, unless acquisition of property for private ownership or control is:
1. For a public purpose; and
2. Specifically and expressly approved in accordance with Section 2 of this Act.
"Private ownership or control" shall be liberally construed to prevent the use of long-term leases, options to purchase, and other mechanisms intended to defeat the purpose of this section, which is to limit the acquisition of property by eminent domain when it is primarily for the benefit and use of private entities.
(4) The authorization of the use of eminent domain proceedings to take or damage property is an exclusive power and function of the Commonwealth, and a public entity shall not exercise the power of eminent domain except as provided in this section.
In Section 1, subsection 3 (a), it defines a ?qualified public use? as being ?1. For public ownership and control by the public entity; and 2. For a public purpose.?

Subsection 3(b) states: ?It is not a "qualified public use" to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire property for private ownership or control, including for economic development, unless (emphasis added) acquisition of property for private ownership or control is: ?1. For a public purpose; and 2. Specifically and expressly approved in accordance with Section 2 of this Act.?

In my minds eye, I see this as a loophole for the government to take private property for the purpose of generating tax revenue. All that is required in Section 2 of this Act is that : 1. If a public entity desires to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire property for private ownership or control, including for economic development, the public entity shall, prior to any taking by eminent domain, submit a description of the property to be acquired, along with the public purpose behind said acquisition, to the voters within its jurisdiction for their approval or rejection; and that 2. The public entity shall advertise that a referendum is to be held on acquisition of the property by eminent domain and the proposed private persons or organizations expected to benefit from the taking. The notice shall be published not more than sixty (60) days nor less than thirty (30) days prior to the date of the election in the manner specified in KRS Chapter 424 for public notices.

Basically, as I see it, following that, all that is required is for a majority of the voters in an affected area to approve the proposal. It has been my experience that a great portion of voters are informed only about presidential, U.S. Congressional, and some state elections---and many of those are only informed (perhaps persuaded would be a better word) by one or two lines which they heard in a commercial. Many certainly are NOT informed about votes that would impact local issues.

While voter ignorance is unfortunate, this is truly the fair and American way to pass legislation of this variety. It is the voter?s inherent duty to educate him/herself about the goings-on at all levels of government. I applaud the sponsors of this bill for this part of the proposal.

However, where I have trouble is in Section 1(b) 1. Where the language states ?a public purpose.? What troubles me is the fact that, if a bill is passed inadvertently, or even knowingly, by a majority, ?public purpose? covers a lot of ground.

As we have seen in the recent eminent domain case in Florida, ?public purpose? is being defined by local officials as a broader tax base. Using this verbiage is part of a multi-pronged attack which aims to displace what is described as 6,000 homeowners in one community there.

I would like to see ?public purpose? defined in this bill as ?excluding providing the Commonwealth or the involved municipality with higher tax revenues.? In America, a home- or business-owners property is a sacred and Constitutional right which should not be allowed to be taken from him for the sole purpose of giving it to another entity which may be able to provide more tax revenue for the community or state.

I further would appreciate it if you could explain to me whether ALL sections of Kentucky?s eminent domain law must be met. If not, would all subsections of a particular section be enough to allow for eminent domain, or would only particular subsections of the law be enough to ?condemn? a property be sufficient for the Commonwealth to step in and take the land at issue?

Under Section 4 of the new Act, under the portion ?It is hereby declared,? subsection (12), it is stated that: ?(12) That the clearance, replanning, reconstruction and rehabilitation of such areas may be a qualified[ are] public use," as defined in Section 1 of this Act,[uses and purposes] for which private property may be acquired??

As previously mentioned, ?public use? covers a lot of ground; some verification of the definition of this term would be greatly helpful here. Subsection (15) further states that ?(15) That the protection and promotion of the health, safety, morals, welfare and reasonable comfort of the citizens of such cities and the state are matters of public concern;.? Could this not be very subjective according to the beliefs of those living in the effected area?

Under Section 6, subsections 15 and 16, it is declared that: ?(15) That the protection and promotion of the health, safety, morals, welfare and reasonable comfort of the citizens of such cities and the state are matters of public concern; and
(16) That the necessity in the public interest for the provisions hereinafter enacted is hereby declared as a matter of legislative determination?

While I find subsection 15 admirable, we are once again left with the obscure language brought to the table by subsection 16. In particular are the words ?necessity in the public interest .? Could ?public interest,? while maybe not in this legislative session, be, in future legislatures, be construed as the increase of tax revenue, thereby forcing residents and business owners from their property? Or do BOTH both subsections 15 and 16 have to be met?

Overall. Everything I have read regarding HB 108 sounds like it is looking out for the welfare of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. However, I would really appreciate it if you would clarify the questions I have raised in this letter.

Furthermore, I would appreciate your feedback on suggestion I have made regarding the definition term ?public purpose? as being one that would not encompass the mere fact that it would benefit the Commonwealth or local municipality financially through broader tax bases.

Thank you so much for your time and effort in regard to this matter.

Sincerely,
Michael A. Minton