Bush puts restrictions on federal takeovers

The president opposes the Supreme Court's decision.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush ordered Friday that federal agencies cannot seize private property except for public projects such as hospitals or roads.
The move occurred on the one-year anniversary of a controversial Supreme Court decision that gave local governments broad power to bulldoze people's homes for commercial development.
The majority opinion in the Supreme Court case involving New London, Conn., homeowners limited the homeowners' rights by saying local governments could take private property for purely economic development-related projects because the motive was to bring more jobs and tax revenue to a city.
But the court also noted that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit. In a backlash to the decision, many have done so, prohibiting so-called takings for shopping malls or other private projects.
Reactions to the court
Many conservatives -- particularly in the West -- see the decision as a dangerous interpretation of the "takings clause" in the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which allows the government to seize property for public use with just compensation. They have argued such takings are an unjustified governmental abuse of individual rights.
Cities, though, backed by some liberals, see the takings power as an important tool for urban renewal projects crucial to revitalizing cities.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, welcomed Bush's executive order. But since the federal government has only a limited role in such projects, he said Congress must do more. Cornyn has introduced legislation that would also bar federal funding for any state or local projects in which the land was obtained through eminent domain.
"The protection of homes and small businesses and other private property against government seizure or unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle of American life and a distinctive aspect of our form of government," Cornyn said.
"The Supreme Court's decision last year represented a radical departure from the decisions handed down interpreting that constitutional provision over the last 200 years, and the president's action was an important step toward righting that wrong."
Doug Kendall, executive director of the Community Rights Counsel, which backed the city's right to take the homes in the Connecticut case, said Bush's order is relatively benign precisely because it doesn't include the funding ban Cornyn and other property-rights advocates want.
"This order appears to apply to a null, or virtually null set of government actions. ... I'm not aware of any federal government agency that takes property for economic development," he said.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.