Press Releases

Congressman David Scott Joins First Hearing on Eminent Domain

Georgia Witness to Participate

WASHINGTON, September 17, 2005 | Chandra Harris ((770) 210 - 5073)
Congressman David Scott Joins First Hearing on Eminent Domain
Today, Congressman David Scott participated in the first Congressional hearing to take action regarding the Supreme Court case Kelo v. City of New London which allows that private property may be condemned and turned over to private developers. The hearing was held in the House Agriculture Committee of which Congressman Scott is the most senior member from Georgia. Mr. Alva Hopkins of Folkston, Georgia testified on behalf of the Forest Landowners Association.

“The Supreme Court decision was a wake-up call for many communities,” Congressman Scott said. “I have heard loud and clear from my constituents that they are worried that their property rights are in jeopardy.”

The Committee specifically will consider H.R. 3405, the Strengthening the Ownership of Private Property Act of 2005, also known as the STOPP Act. This measure would prohibit the use of federal economic development funds by any state or locality that uses the power of eminent domain to obtain property for private commercial development or that fails to pay relocation costs to persons displaced for economic development purposes.

“As a cosponsor of the STOPP Act, I will work to ensure that no federal dollars will be used to unjustly take any property at the local and state level. I will continue to support efforts to curtail the power of eminent domain in an effort to protect private property rights,” Scott stated.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the government to compensate the owner of property taken by eminent domain, stating that no “private property shall be taken for public use, without just compensation.” On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case of Kelo v. City of New London. In Kelo, the Court addressed the city's condemnation of private property to implement its redevelopment plan aimed at invigorating a depressed economy. By 5-4, the Court held that the condemnations satisfied the Fifth Amendment requirement that property condemnations be for a "public use," notwithstanding that the property, as part of the plan, might be turned over to private developers.