After several failed attempts, Colorado legislators are rallying for one last drive to tighten state laws on condemnation of private property. The latest effort, by Reps. Paul Weissman, D-Louisville, and Al White, R-Winter Park, could be introduced as early as today. It would require government agencies that condemn private residences for any kind of public use to pay 125 percent of the home’s fair market value, instead of the 100 percent required by current law.
In our view, paying citizens a bonus for losing their dwellings is a reasonable reform, given the emotional attachment most of us feel for our homes.
The surcharge would only apply to the principal residence of property owners. Rental property or commercial property would continue to be compensated at 100 percent of market value. But the new bill, modeled on a 1968 Michigan constitutional amendment, would also add additional restrictions for any property, including commercial property, taken for economic development purposes as distinct from such traditional public uses as highways.
Existing Colorado law allows properties to be condemned for urban renewal efforts if they meet the strict definitions of “blight” set in a 2004 law, HB 1203, by then-Rep. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield. The new measure retains the definitions drawn by Mitchell, now a senator, but raises the legal bar for meeting them from a “preponderance of evidence” to “clear and convincing evidence.”
The Mitchell bill has already proven its value in stopping a controversial effort by the city of Arvada to condemn a viable commercial area and transfer it to Wal-Mart, in hopes of reaping higher tax collections. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Arvada’s finding of “blight” didn’t meet the strict standards of the Mitchell bill.
In the wake of the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Kelo vs. New London case, citizen disdain has been growing for efforts that take either residential or commercial property for the benefit of other commercial users. But it’s worth noting that the high court, while ruling nothing in the federal constitution prohibited such transfers, specifically urged citizens opposed to such condemnations to turn to their state legislatures for relief. Happily, Colorado had already reined in the worst abuses a year before the Kelo ruling.
The new bill by Weissman and White would add yet another useful layer of protection against abusive condemnations. The legislature must adjourn by May 10 and thus should act promptly to pass this reasonable but effective bill to strengthen the safeguards afforded Colorado citizens against unwarranted takings of their property.
