Published: June 03, 2006 12:51 am            

Eminent domain bill vetoed

DES MOINES — Gov. Tom Vilsack on Friday vetoed a controversial measure that would have restricted the ability of local government to take private property for economic development.

It was a bill that drew heavy local attention as it relates to an ongoing Archer Daniels Midland expansion project.

“I believe we can do better,” Vilsack said. “I believe we can craft a bill that not only protects private property, which is very important, but also does not limit economic opportunity and job growth.”

Vilsack said he was willing to call lawmakers back into special session to deal with the issue.

“If legislators feel strongly about this and want to continue to work on this, I would be happy to cooperate with them in a special session solely dedicated to this issue,” he said.

House Speaker Chris Rants, R-Sioux City, supported the restrictions and said he was disappointed in Vilsack’s veto.

“I think this is one of those rare instances where a veto override is merited and I intend to speak with my members over the weekend and will have a decision on Monday,” Rants said in a statement.

With the Senate deadlocked at 25-25 and Republican controlling the House on a narrow 51-49 margin, the chances of assembling the two-thirds vote needed to override Vilsack’s veto are slim. Other lawmakers said they were willing to take Vilsack up on his offer of a special session.

Senate Democratic Leader Michael Gronstal, of Council Bluffs, urged lawmakers to return to negotiate a measure that Vilsack can sign.

“Iowa law currently allows city councils and other governmental bodies to take a person’s property and give it to large business interests who promise greater economic development,” Gronstal said. “We’ve got to prevent that.”

If lawmakers decide against a special session, Vilsack said he’ll appoint a special task force to make recommendations for the next session.

The measure was sparked by a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that allowed officials in Connecticut to use their power of eminent domain to take homes to build resorts and other developments designed to boost the economy.

Critics in Iowa reacted to that ruling saying it trampled on private property rights, and they crafted a measure making it tougher for local governments to take private property.

Local governments typically use eminent domain to build roads, schools and other public projects.

Vilsack said lawmakers were aware of flaws in the measure because they delayed putting it on the books until October to avoid scrapping a $280 million ADM/Metabolix plastics plant being built in South Clinton. Since then, officials in Dyersville, Burlington and Pella have stepped forward to argue the new restrictions would block economic development projects they were planning.

“With this veto, a critical economic growth tool for local elected officials across the state has been preserved,” said Martha Willits, head of the Iowa Chamber Alliance.

Clinton Area Chamber of Commerce President Dennis Lauver echoed those sentiments. He and a local contingent — including Clinton Regional Development Corp. official Kurt Royster, CRDC Board Chairman Tom Determann and Clinton City Administrator Jeff Kooistra — were in Des Moines for the press conference where Vilsack announced the veto.

Don Petersen, of the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, said his group was disappointed in the veto, and said it was unclear if a compromise could be reached.

“We’re looking at any option that’s available,” Petersen said.

Lauver said compromise should be possible. He e-mailed Rants late Friday and directed his attention to legislation passed by Wisconsin earlier this year.

“I think the Wisconsin model may be at least a good starting point,” he said, explaining that state’s law takes into consideration many factors for permissible use of eminent domain, such as how many jobs could be created, what kind of jobs they are and what they pay. He believes widespread approval of the bill, from chamber and development officials to local governments to concerned citizens, suggest the law protects property rights “in a way that doesn’t negatively impact job creation.”

He hopes Iowa lawmakers will not be persuaded to override the veto and will instead take a fresh look at the entire issue.

“We can do this,” Lauver said, echoing the governor’s statements. “This can happen.”

Clinton Mayor LaMetta Wynn told the Associated Press the project under way in South Clinton may be expanded down the road, and the city may need the power of eminent domain.

“We just think we need the option,” Wynn said.

Cedar Rapids Mayor Kay Chapman said local officials turn to eminent domain as a last resort, but that it is an essential tool in some cases.

“We have two or three projects in Cedar Rapids where we hope we don’t have to use eminent domain, but not having it as an option would be very detrimental,” Chapman said.

“Eminent Domain should always be the last resort for governments needing private property for a public purpose,” Vilsack said in a press release. “States such as Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, Vermont, Pennsylvania and Connecticut have been able to reach reasonable compromises, and I am positive that Iowa will be able to as well.”

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.