Difference between revisions of "Missouri Eminent Domain Reform Initiatives (2010)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - "[[Sunshinereview:" to "[[")
(8 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{MOConstitution}}{{tnr}}Four '''Eminent Domain Reform Initiatives''' are approved for signature circulation in [[Missouri]], heading for the [[Missouri 2010 ballot measures|November 2, 2010 ballot]].  Each is a citizen-initiated [[ballot initiative]], proposed as an {{icafull}} to the [[Missouri Constitution]].<ref>[http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/33035/ ''Kansas City Infozine'', "Two Initiative Petitions Approved for Circulation for 2010 Missouri Ballot", January 9, 2009]</ref>
+
{{nomo2010}}{{tnr}}'''Missouri Eminent Domain Reform Initiatives''' did not appear on the [[Missouri 2010 ballot measures|November 2, 2010]] statewide ballot as {{icafull}}s. A total of four initiatives were approved for signature circulation in [[Missouri]].<ref>[http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/33035/ ''Kansas City Infozine'', "Two Initiative Petitions Approved for Circulation for 2010 Missouri Ballot", January 9, 2009]</ref>
  
On [[BC2010#March|March 28]] supporters of the eminent domain initiatives said it was unlikely they would file signatures to qualify the measures for the 2010 ballot. Ron Calzone, chairman for Missouri Citizens for Property Rights, said, "We have not officially thrown in the towel, but we have effectively thrown it in." According to reports, legal challenges tied up the measures until March 19. The petition signature deadline is May 2. If supporters fail to collect sufficient signatures, they said they plan to submit the initiatives for the [[2012 ballot measures|2012 ballot]].<ref>[http://newstribune.com/articles/2010/03/28/news_state/nt278state27unlikely10.txt ''Associated Press'',"Eminent domain changes unlikely to be filed," March 28, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.news-leader.com/article/20100328/NEWS01/3280338/State-eminent-domain-changes-are-unlikely-to-make-November-ballot ''Associated Press'',"State eminent domain changes are unlikely to make November ballot," March 28, 2010]</ref>
+
On [[BC2010#March|March 28]] supporters of the eminent domain initiatives said it was unlikely they would file signatures to qualify the measures for the 2010 ballot. Ron Calzone, chairman for Missouri Citizens for Property Rights, said, "We have not officially thrown in the towel, but we have effectively thrown it in." According to reports, legal challenges tied up the measures until March 19. The petition signature deadline was May 2.<ref>[http://newstribune.com/articles/2010/03/28/news_state/nt278state27unlikely10.txt ''Associated Press'',"Eminent domain changes unlikely to be filed," March 28, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.news-leader.com/article/20100328/NEWS01/3280338/State-eminent-domain-changes-are-unlikely-to-make-November-ballot ''Associated Press'',"State eminent domain changes are unlikely to make November ballot," March 28, 2010]</ref>
  
Three of the initiatives (3A, 3B and 3C) are extremely similar and were filed by the same group, suggesting that only one of those will be used as the final version for petition circulation purposes.
+
Three of the initiatives (3A, 3B and 3C) were extremely similar and were filed by the same group, suggesting that only one of those would be used as the final version for petition circulation purposes.
* A petition sample form for Version 2 was approved for circulation by the [[Missouri Secretary of State]]'s office on December 15, 2008.  The official [[ballot title]] was certified on January 6, 2009.
+
* A petition sample form for Version 2 was [[approved for circulation]] by the [[Missouri Secretary of State]]'s office on December 15, 2008.  The official [[ballot title]] was certified on January 6, 2009.
* A petition sample form for Version 3A was approved for circulation on December 30, 2008, with the official ballot title certified on January 21, 2009.
+
* A petition sample form for Version 3A was [[approved for circulation]] on December 30, 2008, with the official ballot title certified on January 21, 2009.
* A petition sample form for Version 3B was approved for circulation on December 30, 2008, with the official ballot title certified on January 21, 2009.
+
* A petition sample form for Version 3B was [[approved for circulation]] on December 30, 2008, with the official ballot title certified on January 21, 2009.
* A petition sample form for Version 3D was approved for circulation on December 30, 2008, with the official ballot title certified on January 21, 2009.
+
* A petition sample form for Version 3D was [[approved for circulation]] on December 30, 2008, with the official ballot title certified on January 21, 2009.
  
 
==Official ballot titles==
 
==Official ballot titles==
Line 74: Line 74:
 
:: ''See also: [[Ballot title litigation]] and [[List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2010]]''
 
:: ''See also: [[Ballot title litigation]] and [[List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2010]]''
  
The [[sunshinereview:Missouri Municipal League|Missouri Municipal League]] filed two lawsuits in January 2009 arguing that the fiscal impact statements prepared by the state auditor and the ballot language approved by the [[Missouri Secretary of State]] are misleading.  In particular, the Missouri Municipal League believes that the fiscal note prepared by the state auditor is wrong because it underestimates the costs on cities.<ref>[http://sbj.net/main.asp?SectionID=18&SubSectionID=23&ArticleID=84454&TM=56292.41 ''Springfield Business Journal Online'', "Eminent domain petitions await court decisions", March 16, 2009]</ref>
+
The [[Missouri Municipal League|Missouri Municipal League]] filed two lawsuits in January 2009 arguing that the fiscal impact statements prepared by the state auditor and the ballot language approved by the [[Missouri Secretary of State]] were misleading.  In particular, the Missouri Municipal League said they believed that the [[fiscal impact statement|fiscal note]] prepared by the state auditor was wrong because it underestimated the costs on cities.<ref>[http://sbj.net/main.asp?SectionID=18&SubSectionID=23&ArticleID=84454&TM=56292.41 ''Springfield Business Journal Online'', "Eminent domain petitions await court decisions", March 16, 2009]</ref>
  
Because of the lawsuits, Missouri Citizens for Property Rights is holding off on collecting signatures.
+
Because of the lawsuits, Missouri Citizens for Property Rights said they were holding off on collecting signatures.
  
 
According to Ron Calzone, president of [[Missouri Citizens for Property Rights]], "It's their [the Missouri Municipal League] goal to tie us up in court as long as they can to limit the amount of time we have to collect signatures.  The frustrating thing about it is that the Missouri Municipal League is funded by cities, so the very cities that are abusing eminent domain power are using taxpayer money to keep this off the ballot and squelch the taxpayer."<ref>[http://www.fultonsun.com/articles/2009/01/23/news/346news03.txt ''Fulton Sun'', "Eminent domain petitioning to return to a street corner near you", January 23, 2009]</ref>
 
According to Ron Calzone, president of [[Missouri Citizens for Property Rights]], "It's their [the Missouri Municipal League] goal to tie us up in court as long as they can to limit the amount of time we have to collect signatures.  The frustrating thing about it is that the Missouri Municipal League is funded by cities, so the very cities that are abusing eminent domain power are using taxpayer money to keep this off the ballot and squelch the taxpayer."<ref>[http://www.fultonsun.com/articles/2009/01/23/news/346news03.txt ''Fulton Sun'', "Eminent domain petitioning to return to a street corner near you", January 23, 2009]</ref>
  
 
====Ballot summary revised====
 
====Ballot summary revised====
On [[BC2010#January|January 5, 2010]] the [[Judgepedia:Missouri Court of Appeals|Missouri Court of Appeals]] rewrote the summary of one of the proposed constitutional amendments. Additionally, the court rejected the second legal challenge. Despite the possibility of an appeal to the [[Judgepedia:Missouri Supreme Court|Missouri Supreme Court]], Missouri Citizens for Property Rights said they plan to begin gathering the required signatures to qualify for the ballot. [[Robin Carnahan|Secretary of State Robin Carnahan]] is expected to approve the revised ballot summary by [[BC2010#January|January 10]].<ref>[http://www.joplinglobe.com/statenews/local_story_006000840.html ''Associated Press'',"Missouri: Petitioning to start on eminent domain measure," January 6, 2010]</ref>
+
On [[BC2010#January|January 5, 2010]] the [[Judgepedia:Missouri Court of Appeals|Missouri Court of Appeals]] rewrote the summary of one of the proposed constitutional amendments. Additionally, the court rejected the second legal challenge. Despite the possibility of an appeal to the [[Judgepedia:Missouri Supreme Court|Missouri Supreme Court]], Missouri Citizens for Property Rights said they planned to begin gathering the required signatures to qualify for the ballot. [[Robin Carnahan|Secretary of State Robin Carnahan]] was expected to approve the revised ballot summary by [[BC2010#January|January 10]].<ref>[http://www.joplinglobe.com/statenews/local_story_006000840.html ''Associated Press'',"Missouri: Petitioning to start on eminent domain measure," January 6, 2010]</ref>
  
 
[http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inmoco20100105224 A summary of Missouri Municipal League v. Carnahan can be viewed here.]
 
[http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inmoco20100105224 A summary of Missouri Municipal League v. Carnahan can be viewed here.]
  
 
===Motive behind lawsuit questioned===
 
===Motive behind lawsuit questioned===
On [[BC2009#December|December 14, 2009]] Missouri Citizens for Property Rights filed an audio recording of a [[BC2009#November|November 20]] meeting in which a lawyer, identified as Carrie Hermeling, for the firm representing the [[Sunshinereview:Missouri Municipal League|Missouri Municipal League]] was recorded as saying they were using the courts to delay the petition drive.
+
On [[BC2009#December|December 14, 2009]] Missouri Citizens for Property Rights filed an audio recording of a [[BC2009#November|November 20]] meeting in which a lawyer, identified as Carrie Hermeling, for the firm representing the [[Missouri Municipal League|Missouri Municipal League]] was recorded as saying they were using the courts to delay the petition drive.
  
 
According to the court filing, [[Missouri Citizens for Property Rights]] recorded the conversation using a pen with a built-in recorder. Hermeling, a partner with Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP, was recorded as saying that the case was appealed "with the main objective being to delay the gathering of signatures, and hopefully we're accomplishing that."<ref name="LawsuitMotive">[http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9334152 ''Associated Press'',"Motives in Mo. Eminent Domain Measure Scrutinized," December 14, 2009]</ref>
 
According to the court filing, [[Missouri Citizens for Property Rights]] recorded the conversation using a pen with a built-in recorder. Hermeling, a partner with Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP, was recorded as saying that the case was appealed "with the main objective being to delay the gathering of signatures, and hopefully we're accomplishing that."<ref name="LawsuitMotive">[http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9334152 ''Associated Press'',"Motives in Mo. Eminent Domain Measure Scrutinized," December 14, 2009]</ref>
  
 
====Response to audio recording====
 
====Response to audio recording====
In response to the filed audio recording, in which Missouri Citizens for Property Rights questions the motives behind the ballot title challenge, Gary Markenson, executive director of the Missouri Municipal League, said, "The main objective of the lawsuit was to come up with fair and impartial ballot language."<ref name="LawsuitMotive"/>
+
In response to the filed audio recording, in which Missouri Citizens for Property Rights questioned the motives behind the ballot title challenge, Gary Markenson, executive director of the Missouri Municipal League, said, "The main objective of the lawsuit was to come up with fair and impartial ballot language."<ref name="LawsuitMotive"/>
  
 
==Path to the ballot==
 
==Path to the ballot==
To qualify for the ballot, each initiative requires signatures from registered voters equal to 8% of the total votes cast in the 2008 governor's election from six of the state's nine congressional districts. Petition signatures are due by [[BC2010#May|May 2, 2010]].
+
:: ''See also: [[Missouri signature requirements]]''
 +
 
 +
To qualify for the ballot, each initiative required signatures from registered voters equal to 8% of the total votes cast in the 2008 governor's election from six of the state's nine congressional districts. Petition signatures are due by [[BC2010#May|May 2, 2010]].
  
 
==Sponsor==
 
==Sponsor==
  
The sponsor of all four initiatives is:
+
The sponsor of all four initiatives was:
  
 
Ron Calzone<br>
 
Ron Calzone<br>
Line 131: Line 133:
 
{{2010 ballot measures}}
 
{{2010 ballot measures}}
 
{{missouri}}
 
{{missouri}}
[[Category:Missouri 2010 ballot measures]]
+
[[Category:Did not make ballot, eminent domain]]
[[Category:Eminent domain, Missouri]]
+
[[Category:Eminent domain, 2010]]
+

Revision as of 19:31, 23 November 2013

Not on Ballot
Proposed allot measures that were not on a ballot
This measure did not or
will not appear on a ballot
Missouri Eminent Domain Reform Initiatives did not appear on the November 2, 2010 statewide ballot as initiated constitutional amendments. A total of four initiatives were approved for signature circulation in Missouri.[1]

On March 28 supporters of the eminent domain initiatives said it was unlikely they would file signatures to qualify the measures for the 2010 ballot. Ron Calzone, chairman for Missouri Citizens for Property Rights, said, "We have not officially thrown in the towel, but we have effectively thrown it in." According to reports, legal challenges tied up the measures until March 19. The petition signature deadline was May 2.[2][3]

Three of the initiatives (3A, 3B and 3C) were extremely similar and were filed by the same group, suggesting that only one of those would be used as the final version for petition circulation purposes.

Official ballot titles

Version 2

The official ballot title of Version 2 is:[4]

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to change the power of the General Assembly and constitutionally chartered cities or counties to:
  • Prohibit the use of eminent domain to acquire and resell property found to be blighted, substandard or unsanitary for the purpose of clearance, redevelopment or rehabilitation; and
  • Allow them to require owners of property found to be a public nuisance to abate or clean up the nuisance and, if the property owner fails to do so in a reasonable time, allow the local government to pay for the abatement and impose a lien to recover the cost?

Fiscal impact estimate: According to the fiscal estimate produced by election officials, "The total cost or savings to state or local governmental entities is unknown. Most state governmental entities estimate no costs, however, some state governmental entities may have unknown or indirect costs. Estimated costs, if any, to local governmental entities will vary, but could be significant."

Version 3A

The official ballot title of Version 3A is:[5]

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to restrict the use of eminent domain by:
  • Allowing only government entities to use eminent domain;
  • Prohibiting its use for private purposes, with certain exceptions for utilities;
  • Requiring that any taking of property be necessary for a public use and that landowners receive just compensation;
  • Requiring that the intended public use be declared at the time of the taking; and
  • Permitting the original owners to repurchase the property if it is not so used within five years or if the property is offered to a private entity within 20 years?

Fiscal impact estimate: The total cost or savings to state or local governmental entities is unknown. Most state governmental entities estimate no costs, however, some state governmental entities may have indirect costs or unknown costs that may exceed $100,000. Estimated costs, if any, to local governmental entities could be significant.

Version 3B

The official ballot title of Version 3B is:[6]

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to restrict the use of eminent domain by:
* Allowing only government entities to use eminent domain;
* Prohibiting its use for private purposes, with certain exceptions for utilities;
* Requiring that any taking of property be necessary for a public use and that landowners receive just compensation;
* Requiring that the intended public use be declared at the time of the taking; and
* Permitting the original owners to repurchase the property if it is not so used within five years or if the property is offered to a private entity within 20 years?

Fiscal impact estimate: The total cost or savings to state or local governmental entities is unknown. Most state governmental entities estimate no costs, however, some state governmental entities may have indirect costs or unknown costs that may exceed $100,000. Estimated costs, if any, to local governmental entities could be significant.

Version 3D

The official ballot title of Version 3D is:[7]

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to restrict the use of eminent domain by:
* Allowing only government entities to use eminent domain;
* Prohibiting its use for private purposes, with certain exceptions for utilities;
* Requiring that any taking of property be necessary for a public use and that landowners receive just compensation;
* Requiring that the intended public use be declared at the time of the taking; and
* Permitting the original owners to repurchase the property if it is not so used within five years or if the property is offered to a private entity within 20 years?

Fiscal impact estimate: The total cost or savings to state or local governmental entities is unknown. Most state governmental entities estimate no costs, however, some state governmental entities may have indirect costs or unknown costs that may exceed $100,000. Estimated costs, if any, to local governmental entities could be significant.

Background

Two similar initiatives were circulated for the 2008 ballot, but did not collect sufficient signatures:

Proposed ballot measures that were not on a ballot Missouri Eminent Domain Initiative Amendment to Article I (2008)
Proposed ballot measures that were not on a ballot Missouri Eminent Domain Initiative Amendment to Article VI (2008)

Lawsuits

See also: Ballot title litigation and List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2010

The Missouri Municipal League filed two lawsuits in January 2009 arguing that the fiscal impact statements prepared by the state auditor and the ballot language approved by the Missouri Secretary of State were misleading. In particular, the Missouri Municipal League said they believed that the fiscal note prepared by the state auditor was wrong because it underestimated the costs on cities.[8]

Because of the lawsuits, Missouri Citizens for Property Rights said they were holding off on collecting signatures.

According to Ron Calzone, president of Missouri Citizens for Property Rights, "It's their [the Missouri Municipal League] goal to tie us up in court as long as they can to limit the amount of time we have to collect signatures. The frustrating thing about it is that the Missouri Municipal League is funded by cities, so the very cities that are abusing eminent domain power are using taxpayer money to keep this off the ballot and squelch the taxpayer."[9]

Ballot summary revised

On January 5, 2010 the Missouri Court of Appeals rewrote the summary of one of the proposed constitutional amendments. Additionally, the court rejected the second legal challenge. Despite the possibility of an appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court, Missouri Citizens for Property Rights said they planned to begin gathering the required signatures to qualify for the ballot. Secretary of State Robin Carnahan was expected to approve the revised ballot summary by January 10.[10]

A summary of Missouri Municipal League v. Carnahan can be viewed here.

Motive behind lawsuit questioned

On December 14, 2009 Missouri Citizens for Property Rights filed an audio recording of a November 20 meeting in which a lawyer, identified as Carrie Hermeling, for the firm representing the Missouri Municipal League was recorded as saying they were using the courts to delay the petition drive.

According to the court filing, Missouri Citizens for Property Rights recorded the conversation using a pen with a built-in recorder. Hermeling, a partner with Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP, was recorded as saying that the case was appealed "with the main objective being to delay the gathering of signatures, and hopefully we're accomplishing that."[11]

Response to audio recording

In response to the filed audio recording, in which Missouri Citizens for Property Rights questioned the motives behind the ballot title challenge, Gary Markenson, executive director of the Missouri Municipal League, said, "The main objective of the lawsuit was to come up with fair and impartial ballot language."[11]

Path to the ballot

See also: Missouri signature requirements

To qualify for the ballot, each initiative required signatures from registered voters equal to 8% of the total votes cast in the 2008 governor's election from six of the state's nine congressional districts. Petition signatures are due by May 2, 2010.

The sponsor of all four initiatives was:

Ron Calzone
Missouri Citizens for Property Rights
33867 Highway E
Dixon, MO 65459

See also

Articles

External links

Additional reading

References