News you can use
A contentious issue again raised contention during a video conference in Havre Wednesday with legislators in Helena.
Answering a question from Havre resident Rick Dow, Rep. Wendy Warburton, R-Havre, told the group at the Robins School Administration Building that a bill to revise eminent domain has been substantially modified and really doesn't change the process to begin with.
"Just the title of the bill, it probably wasn't the best title," Warburton said. "It doesn't change the eminent domain laws at all, it just makes it possible for development again to happen in Montana."
The bill, House Bill 198 sponsored by Rep. Ken Peterson, R-Billings, would allow public utilities to use eminent domain to acquire property to use for the public good. The issue arose when a state district judge ruled that a Canadian company working to build a transmission line across Montana could not use eminent domain.
Supporters of the bill say it clarifies what has been in practice in the state for 100 years.
But Havre resident Karen Sloan said the result of the bill would be to allow a private company from a foreign country to condemn land in the state.
"That's what started the big fracas in the first place, was that it is not a public utility and it's not an American, a Montana company, so it does change that part of the eminent domain law," Sloan said.
Warburton said the companies still would have to go through the same process required under state law, including proving necessity, a greater public good created through the proposed use, and that a legitimate offer was made to the property owner and declined.
"So we aren't losing any ground from what we've had historically," she said. "HB 198 is supposed to just make it so we don't stop the possibility of any major projects in Montana. It's not supposed to reduce our property rights.
"I think you're getting too specific," she told Sloan.
Dow referenced a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Kelo vs. New London, Conn., in which the court ruled the city could condemn a private owner's property to build a complex to stimulate urban renovation and development.
That area now is abandoned, Dow said.
"We should really be careful about our private property rights," he said. "No matter what people are saying the wonderful benefits may be, just keep that in mind."
Warburton said many legislators have been working on improving the bill, and said people should look at the amended version.
While the Republican majority stands for bringing industry and jobs to Montana, it also stands for protecting property rights, she said.
She added that the Senate president and the speaker of the House are ranchers, and many legislators are in agriculture or own other property.
"This could happen to them tomorrow … ," Warburton said. "It's definitely not meant to take a step backwards."
A contentious issue again raised contention during a video conference in Havre Wednesday with legislators in Helena.
Answering a question from Havre resident Rick Dow, Rep. Wendy Warburton, R-Havre, told the group at the Robins School Administration Building that a bill to revise eminent domain has been substantially modified and really doesn't change the process to begin with.
"Just the title of the bill, it probably wasn't the best title," Warburton said. "It doesn't change the eminent domain laws at all, it just makes it possible for development again to happen in Montana."
The bill, House Bill 198 sponsored by Rep. Ken Peterson, R-Billings, would allow public utilities to use eminent domain to acquire property to use for the public good. The issue arose when a state district judge ruled that a Canadian company working to build a transmission line across Montana could not use eminent domain.
Supporters of the bill say it clarifies what has been in practice in the state for 100 years.
But Havre resident Karen Sloan said the result of the bill would be to allow a private company from a foreign country to condemn land in the state.
"That's what started the big fracas in the first place, was that it is not a public utility and it's not an American, a Montana company, so it does change that part of the eminent domain law," Sloan said.
Warburton said the companies still would have to go through the same process required under state law, including proving necessity, a greater public good created through the proposed use, and that a legitimate offer was made to the property owner and declined.
"So we aren't losing any ground from what we've had historically," she said. "HB 198 is supposed to just make it so we don't stop the possibility of any major projects in Montana. It's not supposed to reduce our property rights.
"I think you're getting too specific," she told Sloan.
Dow referenced a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Kelo vs. New London, Conn., in which the court ruled the city could condemn a private owner's property to build a complex to stimulate urban renovation and development.
That area now is abandoned, Dow said.
"We should really be careful about our private property rights," he said. "No matter what people are saying the wonderful benefits may be, just keep that in mind."
Warburton said many legislators have been working on improving the bill, and said people should look at the amended version.
While the Republican majority stands for bringing industry and jobs to Montana, it also stands for protecting property rights, she said.
She added that the Senate president and the speaker of the House are ranchers, and many legislators are in agriculture or own other property.
"This could happen to them tomorrow … ," Warburton said. "It's definitely not meant to take a step backwards."
Reader Comments(0)