Reply From Rep. Richard Decker

Here is the reply that Rep. Richard Decker sent to me after I emailed him about SB-230. My reply to him follows.

----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: SB-230

HOUSE REPORT
3-16-2005

POWERS OF EMINENT DOMAIN
Although the origins of "eminent domain" are lost in antiquity, its use as it pertains to English Common Law goes back almost a thousand years to the time of William the Conqueror. In 1066 William the Conqueror invaded England and defeated the Saxon King Harold Godwinsson at the Battle of Hastings. As "king" William the Conqueror took whatever lands he wanted for his personal uses. Some of the land he assigned to his generals, knights, closest friends and allies for their personal oversight. The common people who formerly owned the land then became vassals or serfs of the nobles, as was common practice during the "feudal" period. In return for a share of the crops (taxes?) the Lord of the manor would provide "protection" and some other benefits. Over time, the serfs came to consider the land they farmed and tended as their own. If the King or the Lord wanted some or all of the serfs land for some royal purpose such as building a road, he was perfectly within his rights as the "true" owner to use it as he saw fit. These were the beginnings of "eminent domain" under English common law.

As time went by, the powers of the English kings became less and less absolute and the property held by the lords and to some extent the vassals again became considered to be "private" complete with "private property rights"

By the time of the American Revolution, the framers of our Constitution were willing to break with feudal Common Law tradition and embody those rights into our own law. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution's Bill of Rights partially reads, "… nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says that private property can be taken for public use, but not with out due process and just compensation. This part of the Constitution has become known as the "takings clause."

While most people accept the notion that governments may use eminent domain when a nexis (connection) can be proven for the public "good," most feel condemnation proceedings should not be used by governments to condemn so-called blighted properties and turn them over to the developer of a strip mall so they can collect more taxes. HB 04-1203 CONCERNING LIMITATIONS ON POWERS OF GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES by (then) Representative Shawn Mitchell and Senator Mark Hillman was passed and signed into law by Governor Owens last year to address the above concerns. Most of the controversy in the U.S. about eminent domain revolves around this issue.

Even though it is currently in law, and because of discussions around HB 05-1030-Super Slab, there has been concern whether corporations should be able to use powers of eminent domain. The current Colorado law for powers of eminent domain for corporations as contained in the Colorado revised Statutes is as follows: 38-2-101. Who may condemn real estate, rights-of-way, or other rights. If any corporation formed for the purpose of constructing a road, ditch, reservoir, pipeline, bridge, ferry, tunnel, telegraph line, railroad line, electric line, electric plant, telephone line, or telephone plant is unable to agree with the owner for the purchase of any real estate or right-of-way or easement or other right necessary or required for the purpose of any such corporation for transacting its business or for any lawful purpose connected with the operations of the company, such corporation may acquire title to such real estate or right-of-way or easement or other right in the manner provided by law for the condemnation of real estate or right-of-way. Any ditch, reservoir, or pipeline company, in the same manner, may condemn and acquire the right to take and use any water not previously appropriated. The statute was amended in 1891, 1908, 1953, 1963 and 1979.

Many are quick to condemn the powers of eminent domain for corporations but enjoy the public benefits of eminent domain without ever really thinking about it. In some areas of the state, it is impossible to flush a toilet, turn on a light, heat your house, make a telephone call, make a cell phone call, get a drink of water or pump a tank of gas into your car without enjoying the benefit of eminent domain. Yes, some of the afore mentioned uses are the result of public condemnation, but most are corporate. Last week, I ask representatives of utility companies, pipeline companies and railroads if their company had and used powers of eminent domain. They all responded yes but said it was very rarely necessary to use the powers. Xcel Energy for an example said that out of hundreds of sitings in the last two years, eminent domain was used once in 2003 and once in 2004.

Eminent domain came about precisely because the market could not solve the endless bargaining problem. Human beings adopted it to solve a problem-to keep projects moving ahead that are deemed to have a solid connection to the "public good." Eminent domain is itself a solution to market imperfections. Eminent domain and condemnation and current fair market value are part of the due process and just compensation mentioned in the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution.

If you have questions or concerns regarding this article or other issues, please contact me. I can be reached by phone at the Capitol at 303-866-2946, at home at 719-390-8312 or e-mail at the capitol at richard.decker.house@state.co.us or at home at richardddecker@cs.com My mailing address is 7035 Loveland Terrace, Fountain 80817. Also, see my website at: www.richarddecker4cohd19.com

My Reply to Him

Mr. Decker,

Thank you for your reply. I certainly recognize the legality and value of the government's right of eminent domain. I also recognize the propriety of the government "deputizing" corporations on a case-by-case basis to carry out projects by using eminent domain. What I do not agree with is the State "deputizing" whole industries for all time and in all cases. That is what CRS 38-2-101 did. A company incorporating to build a road has the power of eminent domain, period. The State has said "don't bother us with requests, just go do your thing. We trust you that it is for the public good." Surely you don't agree with that?

Within the last month I have found three new toll road companies that have incorporated and another that amended their filing. Those are four companies with the power to take private property by condemnation. (This is not counting Front Range Toll Road Company). There may be dozens more that I am unable to find and certainly there will be more popping up if SB-230 is not passed. Do you agree with the construction of all of those toll roads? Are they all for the public good? Shouldn't the State retain control over which toll roads are given permission? This is no longer the west of 1880 where anyone willing to build something was given free rein (and property). The blanket permission to condemn property given by 38-2-101 should be repealed.