Senators Hold Hearing on Eminent Domain

Those who argued to strengthen New Hampshire's law said they thought government power to seize private property was growing too strong.

Democratic Senator David Gottesman of Nashua co sponsored the measure.

He said he thought it would curb the excesses that have developed in other states.

we as legislators need to make sure that nh's cities and towns are not forcing landowners to sell their land below market value with threats of eminent domain. the practice of condemning property, simply to devalue it and then selling it to the highest bidder in the name of public good is not the way to treat landowners in the state of nh.

The measure is sure to pass, since all 24 senators are sponsors.

Its one of several measures in the Legislature that have been filed in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling last June in Kelo versus New London, Connecticut.

In that case, the court upheld New London's taking of private homes and businesses for a developer to construct a luxury hotel, upscale condominiums, and new office buildings.

The rationale for the taking was that the development would be in the best economic interest of city residents.

In New Hampshire, the Legislature is aiming to focus the state's eminent domain law to make sure takings are not for economic gain, but strictly for public use.

In that light, takings for roads and highways seem well within bounds.

But Edwin Smith of the Department of Transportation testified at least 3 recent eminent domain takings were done at least partially for economic gain.

there are three projects in the state that when we were developing the purpose and needs statement economic development was used as one of the reasons why the project was done. they're listed here the manchester airport access road, rochester spaulding turnpike exit 10 and the derry londonderry exit 4a. these are the only three projects we have that are done this way. the rest of them are all for safety purposes or whatever, but this could be in the strict sense of the word, not for public use.

In other cases in New Hampshire in recent years, the right of eminent domain was exercised three times.

In one, the state had to resort to eminent domain to allow Fraser Papers to buy the idle pulp mill in Berlin.

In another, Manchester had to reach for the power to get the Verizon Wireless Arena constructed.

Concord has also used eminent domain, to clear the way for a downtown hotel to build a conference center.

That hotel never did go through with the plan, but the city did eventually get their center.

In each of these cases, the takings were done with landowner approval.

Cordell Johnson of New Hampshire's Municipal Association told the committee that the bill before the senators would prohibit transactions like these.

all of those transactions would have been prohibited under this bill. and these are cases where no one objected the property owner was always willing to sell. so what we have, we have a procedure that is almost never used. and in the rare cases where it has been used, everyone wins. no one objects. no one's property rights are impinged. its a winning situation all around. so now we're introducing a bill to make that illegal. i know that's not what's intended. but that's what's going to happen because this bill would prohibit these so called friendly taking as well as these coercive takings everyone is worried about.

Johnson and other critics urged the senators to pass a measure that included a study to consider the eminent domain question a little longer.

And they also said a one year moratorium would be a good idea, to give lawmakers time to consider the unintended consequences of tightening eminent domain law.