Because the Martin Luther King holiday offers many workers the day off, it turned into a big lobby day at the state capitol in Richmond on Monday, January 17.
Citizen activists from across the spectrum poured into the General Assembly Building to speak with delegates and senators about pet causes and political priorities.
One of the organizations that descended on Richmond was the Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia. RLC members from Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads, the Richmond area, and Charlottesville convened early on Monday morning, attended a bell-tower rally sponsored by the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), and then made the rounds of legislative offices to introduce themselves to lawmakers and talk about issues.
Eminent domain reform
During a meeting with state Senator Mark Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg), the topic of protecting private property rights and eminent domain reform was raised. Senator Obenshain has introduced a constitutional amendment, SJ 307, which is likely to be considered and voted on by the Senate Privileges & Elections Committee on Tuesday, January 18.
Senator Obenshain went on the record with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner and spelled out what his constitutional amendment would do.
The resolution “basically codifies the statutory language that we adopted two years ago” in reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo v. City of New London (2005). “It prevents the economic development/employment-type of eminent domain exercises that have been subject to abuse across the commonwealth of Virginia. It gives us the opportunity to memorialize that [language] in the Constitution so that it can’t just be undermined by efforts of the General Assembly in years to come.”
Differing approaches
Obenshain’s proposal is identical to a resolution introduced in the House of Delegates by Manoli Loupassi (R-Richmond), designated HJ 498, but it differs from a more far-reaching amendment patroned by Delegates Rob Bell (R-Albemarle) and Johnny Joannou (D-Portsmouth). (Delegate Bell’s resolution is HJ 647; Delegate Joannou’s is HJ 693).
Will the competing proposals end up having their differences “ironed out”?
“Absolutely,” replied Obenshain.
“ It’s my anticipation,” he said, “that they’re going to be ironed out by the end of the day.”
The House of Delegates, he explained, “has a long way to go before they have finished with the bills that are passing through there and, just by virtue of the legislative process, it necessitates those differences being worked out.”
Obenshain added: “I love some of the things that Rob Bell and Johnny Joannou are trying to do. I’m not sure that those are within the realm of the possible in the Senate. I believe also that those are areas that can and may be addressed by statute as well, so who knows? Maybe I’ll be surprised” and the Bell-Joannou proposal “will roll out of the House and will be something that the Senate can embrace. I certainly embrace those principles.”
More receptive
Obenshain also believes, emphatically, that the General Assembly is more receptive to these ideas than it was two years ago.
“Whether votes are going to change,” he said, “is another question.”
He pointed out that in 2009, the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee rejected the same proposal on an 8 to 7 vote.
“We needed one more vote” to report the bill to the full Senate, Obenshain noted.
The change in 2011 is that “this is an election year. There are distinctly different attitudes” among the senators who will be facing the voters in November.
Moreover, Obenshain continues, “the coalition that formed to fight this bill two years ago does not exist any longer. I think there is a growing recognition, at least among the stakeholders -- meaning some of the abusers of eminent domain power -- that something’s going to pass this year. I hope that that’s right. So I’m out there fighting, just like I have been for the past five years. Five years since that 'little pink house' was taken!”
Recalling a 2007 statement by Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw (D-Springfield) that “I just don’t believe that this is something that we put into the Constitution of Virginia,” Obenshain quipped:
“I just believe, contrary to the belief of Dick Saslaw, that property rights do belong in the Constitution.”
Do you like this article? Do you want to see more like it? Be sure to click on the "subscribe" button at the top of the page.
If you would like to become an Examiner on Examiner.com, click on the "write for us" button on the upper right corner of this page.
Comments