Property Rights Under Assult

Do you believe in private property? Certainly the founders of our country did.

Do you realize that Fairfax Delegate David Bulova is trying to destroy the property rights of Virginians?

Delegate Bulova is trying to change the the current definition of "public use" to include "or any other use as reasonably determined by the locality to be in the public interest.” Such a loophole will allow any and all property to be confiscated by local governments for any reason they can think up.

If you value your property rights, contact your delegate today and let them know to vote against Bulova's HB 387, the destruction of property rights act of 2008

[ See Comments link below to read Delegate Bulova's response ]

Comments

  1. Delegate David BulovaJanuary 26, 2008 at 10:47 AM

    I appreciate your concern regarding HB387 and thank you for giving me an opportunity to respond. I understand that this was the subject of an article by Senator Cuccinelli in his Cuccinelli Compass. Given that the Senator's office is only one floor below mine, I am sad that he didn't take the time to visit me before hand so that he could get a better understanding of what my bill was intended to accomplish.

    I want to assure you that in no way is it my intent to overturn or diminish what we did last year to tighten the laws regarding eminent domain. I whole heartedly supported that measure and voted for it. The issue that I am trying to fix is an unintended consequence of the legislation last year caused by the fact that the definition of public use for eminent domain is the same as the definition of public use dealing with a local government's ability to simply purchase property from a willing seller without condemnation. Other folks here in Richmond expressed your same concern when looking at the bill summary. However, once I explained what the change actually did, they were comfortable with the bill.

    Even before the Senator's newsletter, I was working with the Institute for Justice and other private property rights organizations, as well as the Virginia Farm Bureau, to work out some clearer language. It appears that we have done so successfully.

    I hope that I have aleviated your concern since it was not my intent to affect our landmark eminent domain reforms. Please don't hesitate to contact me if I can answer any questions.

    -- Delegate David Bulova

    ReplyDelete
  2. CitizenPatriotJanuary 26, 2008 at 2:51 PM

    I thank Delegate David Bulova for responding with the intent of HB387. It seems to me that if the language of NH387 remains the same as that in the original post, then it can (and if it can, it will) be used to define almost any desired confiscation of property to be in the "public interest." I would be interested in seeing language which accomplishes Delegate Bulova's intent while at the same time does not provide a huge loophole that will in fact diminish property rights.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Delegate David BulovaJanuary 26, 2008 at 4:08 PM

    I am more than happy to share the language that we have developed. As of now (we may continue to refine this and have sent it out to other experts in property rights law to review), the new language is proposed to be:

    "Public use as used in this section shall have the same meaning as the definition of public use in § 1-219.1, or, except where the real property interest is to be acquired by condemnation or eminent domain, any other use as reasonably determined by the locality to be in the public interest."

    The section of the Code that I am trying to amend already has a clause saying that the provisions don't apply if the property is to be taken by eminent domain. However, I think all of us agree and would be much more comfortable with having the amended language for the reasons you cite in your comments. Hope this helps, and again, thanks for letting me comment.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is Plan B an abortifacient?

Some defenders of Gov. Gilmore's position on the Board of Directors of Barr Pharmaceuticals (manufacturers of the morning after pill, Plan B) have declared that Plan B is only a contraceptive and not an abortifacient. However, while Barr Labs claims that the morning after pill (Plan B) is not "the abortion pill" RU-486, it nevertheless acts as an abortifacient in one of its two birth control methods. One might want to take a look at one of Barr Labs own web sites where you will find information that Plan B works in more than one way. While one method, they cite is... "Plan B® works like a regular birth control pill. It prevents pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary, and may also prevent the fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg)." and that is truly a method of contraception, the second method they describe is an abortifacient They describe the second method as follows..."Plan B® may also work by preven
Read more

Herman Cain: An Impressive Resume

Herman Cain is running for president. He’s not a career politician (in fact he has never held political office). He’s known as a pizza guy, but there’s a lot more to him. He’s also a computer guy, a banker guy, and a rocket scientist guy. Here’s his bio: - Bachelor’s degree in Mathematics. - Master’s degree in Computer Science. - Mathematician for the Navy, where he worked on missile ballistics. - Computer systems analyst for Coca-Cola. - VP of Corporate Data Systems and Services for Pillsbury (this is the top of the ladder in the computer world, being in charge of information systems for a major corporation). All achieved before reaching the age of 35. Since he reached the top of the information systems world, he changed careers! - Business Manager. Took charge of Pillsbury’s 400 Burger King restaurants in the Philadelphia area, which were the company’s poorest performers in the country. Spent the first nine months learning the business from the ground up, cooking hamburger and yes,
Read more

Irresponsible Journalists Publish Without Checking the Facts

Yesterday I noted that a biased student journalist misrepresented a statement made by Delegate Bob Marshall . Apparently the student heard what she "wanted to hear" rather than what was actually said and meant by the speaker. Media attending the press conference included ABC News, Channel 8, CBN, The Washington Post, Richmond Times, The Virginia Pilot, The Associated Press and other fine news sources. Yet, none of these professional journalist heard or interpreted Delegate Marshall's "alleged statement" in the way that student Ms. Kelsey Radcliffe did. And why is that? Simply because what she reported as being said was never said, nor the meaning she implied ever meant! Yet, our local gossip rag, the Gainsville Times, simply took the article by Ms. Radcliff without checking any of the facts, nor even attempting to verify the veracity of the article, and published it outright causing great harm to a very honorable and highly dedicated public servant who has n
Read more