Wednesday Update: Katrina Legislation Tracking
Katrina Legislation Tracking
Louisiana Special Session
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Katrina Legislation Tracking is monitoring the Louisiana Special Session from February 6-17, 2006. These next two weeks are a critical time to make sure the voices of Katrina survivors and advocates are heard. This email series is tracking how the Special Session will affect the post-Katrina rebuilding of Louisiana.
Today’s Contents
Tuesday and Wednesday Summary
Expropriation/Eminent Domain Bill Descriptions and Analyses
Links to new House and Senate Bills
Tuesday and Wednesday Summary
A list of House Committee meetings held on February 7th and 8th, as well as agendas and video web casts of these meetings are available here.
Expropriation/Eminent Domain Bills
The Brennan Center for Justice and Partnership for Working families have provided the following descriptions and analyses of several bills dealing with expropriation/eminent that have been introduced for the Special Session. A full copy of this document is available here.
Bills Currently in Committee:
These first three bills were introduced on Monday and then referred to Committee. These bills are essentially on a “fast-track” to passage and as a result, require immediate attention, particularly House Bill 16.
House Bill 16 (HB 16)
Introduced by Representative Tucker, Referred to Committee on Civil Law and Procedure
*** We have been told by one source that during today's Committee meeting, Rep. Tucker made a decision to withdraw the bill, but this has not yet been formally reported in the Committee's minutes. Regardless, stay alert. Even if it is not voted on during the Special Session it will certainly re-appear during the Regular Legislative Session, which takes place in March.***
What Would It Do? HB 16 would expand the powers of the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority (NORA), allowing it to use the "quick take" means of expropriation currently available only to the City of New Orleans. Under "quick take" expropriation, blighted or abandoned property can be expropriated for a public purpose with 15 days' notice to the owner, followed by an additional 15 days for the owner to file a suit contesting the taking. After this period, the taking is final.
Analysis: We believe this bill presents serious dangers for property owners in New Orleans. The bill is poorly drafted, in that it is not clear what procedures NORA must follow when exercising the quick take authority. NORA is not subject to the political controls that the City government is, and may be more difficult for affected communities to influence. In addition, under this proposal, it is unclear whether NORA would be required to provide the opportunities for public involvement which are required for most NORA actions under its authorizing statute. Providing quick take expropriation authority to NORA – especially without clear controls – increases the risk of people losing their property without adequate opportunity to be heard.
House Bill 40 (HB 40)
Introduced by Representative Richmond, Referred to Committee on Civil Law and Procedure
What Would It Do? HB 40 amends the law that controls what is known as adverse possession or acquisitive prescription. Adverse possession generally allows an individual to become the owner of a property by taking possession of that property. The law in question provides for a three-year period of possession in order to become the owner of the property. The proposed amendment states that, rather than requiring the possessor to file an affidavit describing the adverse possession and so on, the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority can file the affidavit.
Analysis: Although the change proposed by this law appears minor and technical, it appears that it might be intended to entirely alter the purpose of this law. Our analysis is not yet complete.
House Bill 1 (HB 1)
Introduced by Representative Burrell, referred to Committee on Municipal, Parochial and Cultural Affairs
What Would It Do? HB 1 would reduce from 120 days to 60 days the amount of time that a property owner has to file a lawsuit contesting the proceedings when a political subdivision (usually a city) acquires abandoned property that was adjudicated to it more than five years ago.
Analysis: Because this bill applies only to property that was taken from the owner by the government more than five years previously, we assume that its reduction in the amount of time available to contest its next acquisition will affect very few properties or people.
Bills introduced and returned to the calendar:
The following bills were introduced on Monday, February 6th and returned to the calendar and are scheduled to be referred to a committee during the general legislative session on Wednesday, February 8th. Each of these bills limits in some way the government’s powers of expropriation. These bills therefore respond to very real fears that in the wake of Hurricane Katrina government will expropriate property from low-income people and provide it to private developers, for construction of projects that will exclude original owners. The bills provide a range of limitations on expropriation powers.
A. Moratorium on Expropriation
House Bill 43 (HB 43)
Introduced by Representative Marchand
What Would It Do? HB 43 suspends the expropriations process (both normal expropriation and the "quick take" expropriation) for one year following the date that homeowners are allowed back into property after a declared disaster.
Analysis: HB 43, would help to prevent survivors of Katrina or other disasters from losing their property while still trying to get back on their feet. This one-year suspension of certain types of expropriation protects the interests of property owners without interfering with the long-term ability of government to address blighted or abandoned property.
B. Limitations on Expropriation for Economic Development
The following bills all seek to prevent expropriation for the purpose of private development. Strangely, these bills are not only local progressive responses to fear of whitewashing neighborhoods following Hurricane Katrina, but also fit into a national movement seeking to constrain such expropriation in response to the United States Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. New London. The Kelo decision affirmed the power of municipalities to take private property from an individual in order to give it to a private developer to stimulate economic development.
House Bill 24 (HB 24)
Introduced by Representative Bruneau and others
House Bill 34 (HB 34)
Introduced by Representative Montgomery and others
Senate Bill 10 (SB 10)
Introduced by McPherson
What Would They Do? These identical bills would present a referendum to the voters of Louisiana, to be decided at the April 29, 2006 election, proposing that the Louisiana Constitution be amended to prohibit the expropriation of private property to be used by any private person. The goal of this amendment would be to prevent the government from expropriating someone's property and then transferring it to a private company or individual – a standard approach for redevelopment projects undertaken for the purpose of economic development. In addition, the amendment would narrow the definition of the public purposes for which property may be expropriated, in order to prevent general economic development from being used to justify expropriation.
Analysis: The constitutional amendment contained in these bills would significantly restrict governmental ability to expropriate private property. Government would still be able to expropriate property for things like schools, parks, and streets. However, government would be able to pursue economic development projects through sale of land to private developers only if the original landowners voluntarily decided to sell. This change would provide significant protections to property owners in Katrina-impacted areas that interest private developers. If the voters decided to place this restriction in the Constitution, this restriction would be more difficult to lift or alter than if it were merely a law.
House Bill 33 (HB 33)
Introduced by Representative Marchand
House Bill 38 (HB 38)
Introduced by Representative Richmond and others
What Would They Do? These identical bills would prohibit expropriation for the purpose of most kinds of development (retail, commercial, office, industrial, or residential), or to stimulate tax revenue growth, or to transfer to a company, individual, public-private partnership, or any other nongovernmental entity. They also would provide that if expropriated property (1) is not used within 30 years; or (2) is no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was expropriated, it must be offered back to the original owner, or his or her heirs, at the original price, with some adjustments.
Analysis: Like HB 24, but more sweeping, this broadly written bill would dramatically restrict the government's ability to expropriate private property. Several important ramifications of this language are debatable and should be clarified in the legislative process. The provision requiring property to be offered back to the original owner at the original price would provide additional protections for the current composition of neighborhoods.
House Bill 35 (HB 35)
Introduced by Representative Ansardi
What Would It Do? HB 35 would put a constitutional amendment to the voters on April 29, 2006. The amendment would place in the Constitution the language proposed in HB 33 restricting expropriation for the purpose of most if not all private development, increasing tax revenues, or providing property to private businesses or individuals. The amendment would explicitly state, however, that blighted or abandoned property could be expropriated.
Analysis: Like HB 33, HB 35 would dramatically restrict expropriation for purposes of economic development. By placing this restriction in the Constitution (if the voters so determined), this restriction would be more difficult to lift or alter than if it were merely a law. However, the explicit exception for blighted or abandoned properties addresses one potential issue with HB 33.
House Bill 39 (HB 39)
Introduced by Representatives Farrar and Richmond
What Would It Do? HB 39 would place before the voters a proposed constitutional amendment that would rewrite the state constitutional provisions relating to expropriation. The amendment would: (1) prevent expropriation of property for use by developers; (2) require a written statement explaining the need for expropriation; (3) prohibit the transfer of expropriated property to any person without first offering it to the original owner; and (4) require unused property or any portion of property to be declared surplus and offered to original owner.
Analysis: HB 39 provides a more detailed reworking of the standards and procedures for expropriation. Like the other bills, it would protect property owners at the expense of one method of making over large portions of destroyed areas. Its requirement of a written statement explaining the need for expropriation would promote transparency. The provisions requiring the property to be reoffered to the original owner might act to preserve neighborhood continuity and protect the interests of the original owner. As a constitutional amendment, it would be more difficult to lift or alter than a law.
Links to House and Senate Bills
Education
HB68-
SB2
Environment/Land Use:
HB11- HB16- HB23– HB25 – HB44 – HB47 – HB48 – HB49 – HB52- HB59
SB3- SB4- SB5- SB6
Housing/Insurance:
HB2- HB4- HB7- HB8 - HB10- HB15- HB16- HB17 – HB31 – HB32 – HB41 – HB42 – HB45 - HB46- HB56- HB59- HB62- HB69- HB73- HB80- HB81-
SB7- SB10- SB12- SB14- SB15- SB38-
Eminent Domain
HB1 - HB24 - HB33 – HB34 – HB35 – HB38 – HB39 – HB40 – HB43- HB59- HB72- HB76- HB77- HB79- HB82- HB85-
SB30- SB31-
Voting Right/Elections:
HB12- HB13- HB14- HB28- HB30- HB63- HB64- HB65- HB66- HB67
SB2- SB16- SB22-
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties:
HB12- HB13- HB14
Employment:
HB6- HB58- HB89-
SB1
Assistance:
HB6- HB26 –
SB1
Tax:
HB18- HB19- HB20- HB21- HB22- HB27 – HB46 – HB50 – HB51- HB62-
SB18- SB23- SB36-
Government Reorganization::
HB53- HB54- HB55- HB56- HB57- HB59- HB84- HB86- HB87-
SB8- SB9- SB13- SB17- SB19- SB20- SB40-
+++
Contribute Information
If you or your organization is tracking legislation included in the Special Session, please email katrinalegislation@gmail.com to include your analysis in our email updates. We depend on the analysis of contributing organizations to provide as much information as possible to our network. Please share your analysis with our network! Contact katrinalegislation@gmail.com with any questions.
Join Email List
To add yourself to our email distribution list, please email katrinalegislation.subscribe@gmail.com. Your email address will be added to our list as soon as possible.
+++
About
Katrina Legislation Tracking is a collaborative effort to distribute Katrina-related policy news from a streamlined source. Our goal is to make action easy by keeping information on proposed legislation all in one place. We aim to inform and learn from grassroots networks and advocates about changes in local, state and federal policy that might impact Hurricane Katrina survivors. We believe that public policies should correct the race, class and gender inequalities that contributed to Hurricane Katrina’s devastation.
Katrina Legislation Tracking is a partnership effort between the National Economic and Social Rights Initiative, the Katrina Information Network, the Praxis Project, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Partnership for Working Families, Law Students for Human Rights at NYU School of Law and a growing number of progressive organizations.
Louisiana Special Session
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Katrina Legislation Tracking is monitoring the Louisiana Special Session from February 6-17, 2006. These next two weeks are a critical time to make sure the voices of Katrina survivors and advocates are heard. This email series is tracking how the Special Session will affect the post-Katrina rebuilding of Louisiana.
Today’s Contents
Tuesday and Wednesday Summary
Expropriation/Eminent Domain Bill Descriptions and Analyses
Links to new House and Senate Bills
Tuesday and Wednesday Summary
A list of House Committee meetings held on February 7th and 8th, as well as agendas and video web casts of these meetings are available here.
Expropriation/Eminent Domain Bills
The Brennan Center for Justice and Partnership for Working families have provided the following descriptions and analyses of several bills dealing with expropriation/eminent that have been introduced for the Special Session. A full copy of this document is available here.
Bills Currently in Committee:
These first three bills were introduced on Monday and then referred to Committee. These bills are essentially on a “fast-track” to passage and as a result, require immediate attention, particularly House Bill 16.
House Bill 16 (HB 16)
Introduced by Representative Tucker, Referred to Committee on Civil Law and Procedure
*** We have been told by one source that during today's Committee meeting, Rep. Tucker made a decision to withdraw the bill, but this has not yet been formally reported in the Committee's minutes. Regardless, stay alert. Even if it is not voted on during the Special Session it will certainly re-appear during the Regular Legislative Session, which takes place in March.***
What Would It Do? HB 16 would expand the powers of the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority (NORA), allowing it to use the "quick take" means of expropriation currently available only to the City of New Orleans. Under "quick take" expropriation, blighted or abandoned property can be expropriated for a public purpose with 15 days' notice to the owner, followed by an additional 15 days for the owner to file a suit contesting the taking. After this period, the taking is final.
Analysis: We believe this bill presents serious dangers for property owners in New Orleans. The bill is poorly drafted, in that it is not clear what procedures NORA must follow when exercising the quick take authority. NORA is not subject to the political controls that the City government is, and may be more difficult for affected communities to influence. In addition, under this proposal, it is unclear whether NORA would be required to provide the opportunities for public involvement which are required for most NORA actions under its authorizing statute. Providing quick take expropriation authority to NORA – especially without clear controls – increases the risk of people losing their property without adequate opportunity to be heard.
House Bill 40 (HB 40)
Introduced by Representative Richmond, Referred to Committee on Civil Law and Procedure
What Would It Do? HB 40 amends the law that controls what is known as adverse possession or acquisitive prescription. Adverse possession generally allows an individual to become the owner of a property by taking possession of that property. The law in question provides for a three-year period of possession in order to become the owner of the property. The proposed amendment states that, rather than requiring the possessor to file an affidavit describing the adverse possession and so on, the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority can file the affidavit.
Analysis: Although the change proposed by this law appears minor and technical, it appears that it might be intended to entirely alter the purpose of this law. Our analysis is not yet complete.
House Bill 1 (HB 1)
Introduced by Representative Burrell, referred to Committee on Municipal, Parochial and Cultural Affairs
What Would It Do? HB 1 would reduce from 120 days to 60 days the amount of time that a property owner has to file a lawsuit contesting the proceedings when a political subdivision (usually a city) acquires abandoned property that was adjudicated to it more than five years ago.
Analysis: Because this bill applies only to property that was taken from the owner by the government more than five years previously, we assume that its reduction in the amount of time available to contest its next acquisition will affect very few properties or people.
Bills introduced and returned to the calendar:
The following bills were introduced on Monday, February 6th and returned to the calendar and are scheduled to be referred to a committee during the general legislative session on Wednesday, February 8th. Each of these bills limits in some way the government’s powers of expropriation. These bills therefore respond to very real fears that in the wake of Hurricane Katrina government will expropriate property from low-income people and provide it to private developers, for construction of projects that will exclude original owners. The bills provide a range of limitations on expropriation powers.
A. Moratorium on Expropriation
House Bill 43 (HB 43)
Introduced by Representative Marchand
What Would It Do? HB 43 suspends the expropriations process (both normal expropriation and the "quick take" expropriation) for one year following the date that homeowners are allowed back into property after a declared disaster.
Analysis: HB 43, would help to prevent survivors of Katrina or other disasters from losing their property while still trying to get back on their feet. This one-year suspension of certain types of expropriation protects the interests of property owners without interfering with the long-term ability of government to address blighted or abandoned property.
B. Limitations on Expropriation for Economic Development
The following bills all seek to prevent expropriation for the purpose of private development. Strangely, these bills are not only local progressive responses to fear of whitewashing neighborhoods following Hurricane Katrina, but also fit into a national movement seeking to constrain such expropriation in response to the United States Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. New London. The Kelo decision affirmed the power of municipalities to take private property from an individual in order to give it to a private developer to stimulate economic development.
House Bill 24 (HB 24)
Introduced by Representative Bruneau and others
House Bill 34 (HB 34)
Introduced by Representative Montgomery and others
Senate Bill 10 (SB 10)
Introduced by McPherson
What Would They Do? These identical bills would present a referendum to the voters of Louisiana, to be decided at the April 29, 2006 election, proposing that the Louisiana Constitution be amended to prohibit the expropriation of private property to be used by any private person. The goal of this amendment would be to prevent the government from expropriating someone's property and then transferring it to a private company or individual – a standard approach for redevelopment projects undertaken for the purpose of economic development. In addition, the amendment would narrow the definition of the public purposes for which property may be expropriated, in order to prevent general economic development from being used to justify expropriation.
Analysis: The constitutional amendment contained in these bills would significantly restrict governmental ability to expropriate private property. Government would still be able to expropriate property for things like schools, parks, and streets. However, government would be able to pursue economic development projects through sale of land to private developers only if the original landowners voluntarily decided to sell. This change would provide significant protections to property owners in Katrina-impacted areas that interest private developers. If the voters decided to place this restriction in the Constitution, this restriction would be more difficult to lift or alter than if it were merely a law.
House Bill 33 (HB 33)
Introduced by Representative Marchand
House Bill 38 (HB 38)
Introduced by Representative Richmond and others
What Would They Do? These identical bills would prohibit expropriation for the purpose of most kinds of development (retail, commercial, office, industrial, or residential), or to stimulate tax revenue growth, or to transfer to a company, individual, public-private partnership, or any other nongovernmental entity. They also would provide that if expropriated property (1) is not used within 30 years; or (2) is no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was expropriated, it must be offered back to the original owner, or his or her heirs, at the original price, with some adjustments.
Analysis: Like HB 24, but more sweeping, this broadly written bill would dramatically restrict the government's ability to expropriate private property. Several important ramifications of this language are debatable and should be clarified in the legislative process. The provision requiring property to be offered back to the original owner at the original price would provide additional protections for the current composition of neighborhoods.
House Bill 35 (HB 35)
Introduced by Representative Ansardi
What Would It Do? HB 35 would put a constitutional amendment to the voters on April 29, 2006. The amendment would place in the Constitution the language proposed in HB 33 restricting expropriation for the purpose of most if not all private development, increasing tax revenues, or providing property to private businesses or individuals. The amendment would explicitly state, however, that blighted or abandoned property could be expropriated.
Analysis: Like HB 33, HB 35 would dramatically restrict expropriation for purposes of economic development. By placing this restriction in the Constitution (if the voters so determined), this restriction would be more difficult to lift or alter than if it were merely a law. However, the explicit exception for blighted or abandoned properties addresses one potential issue with HB 33.
House Bill 39 (HB 39)
Introduced by Representatives Farrar and Richmond
What Would It Do? HB 39 would place before the voters a proposed constitutional amendment that would rewrite the state constitutional provisions relating to expropriation. The amendment would: (1) prevent expropriation of property for use by developers; (2) require a written statement explaining the need for expropriation; (3) prohibit the transfer of expropriated property to any person without first offering it to the original owner; and (4) require unused property or any portion of property to be declared surplus and offered to original owner.
Analysis: HB 39 provides a more detailed reworking of the standards and procedures for expropriation. Like the other bills, it would protect property owners at the expense of one method of making over large portions of destroyed areas. Its requirement of a written statement explaining the need for expropriation would promote transparency. The provisions requiring the property to be reoffered to the original owner might act to preserve neighborhood continuity and protect the interests of the original owner. As a constitutional amendment, it would be more difficult to lift or alter than a law.
Links to House and Senate Bills
Education
HB68-
SB2
Environment/Land Use:
HB11- HB16- HB23– HB25 – HB44 – HB47 – HB48 – HB49 – HB52- HB59
SB3- SB4- SB5- SB6
Housing/Insurance:
HB2- HB4- HB7- HB8 - HB10- HB15- HB16- HB17 – HB31 – HB32 – HB41 – HB42 – HB45 - HB46- HB56- HB59- HB62- HB69- HB73- HB80- HB81-
SB7- SB10- SB12- SB14- SB15- SB38-
Eminent Domain
HB1 - HB24 - HB33 – HB34 – HB35 – HB38 – HB39 – HB40 – HB43- HB59- HB72- HB76- HB77- HB79- HB82- HB85-
SB30- SB31-
Voting Right/Elections:
HB12- HB13- HB14- HB28- HB30- HB63- HB64- HB65- HB66- HB67
SB2- SB16- SB22-
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties:
HB12- HB13- HB14
Employment:
HB6- HB58- HB89-
SB1
Assistance:
HB6- HB26 –
SB1
Tax:
HB18- HB19- HB20- HB21- HB22- HB27 – HB46 – HB50 – HB51- HB62-
SB18- SB23- SB36-
Government Reorganization::
HB53- HB54- HB55- HB56- HB57- HB59- HB84- HB86- HB87-
SB8- SB9- SB13- SB17- SB19- SB20- SB40-
+++
Contribute Information
If you or your organization is tracking legislation included in the Special Session, please email katrinalegislation@gmail.com to include your analysis in our email updates. We depend on the analysis of contributing organizations to provide as much information as possible to our network. Please share your analysis with our network! Contact katrinalegislation@gmail.com with any questions.
Join Email List
To add yourself to our email distribution list, please email katrinalegislation.subscribe@gmail.com. Your email address will be added to our list as soon as possible.
+++
About
Katrina Legislation Tracking is a collaborative effort to distribute Katrina-related policy news from a streamlined source. Our goal is to make action easy by keeping information on proposed legislation all in one place. We aim to inform and learn from grassroots networks and advocates about changes in local, state and federal policy that might impact Hurricane Katrina survivors. We believe that public policies should correct the race, class and gender inequalities that contributed to Hurricane Katrina’s devastation.
Katrina Legislation Tracking is a partnership effort between the National Economic and Social Rights Initiative, the Katrina Information Network, the Praxis Project, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Partnership for Working Families, Law Students for Human Rights at NYU School of Law and a growing number of progressive organizations.
posted by lshr at 7:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home