U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

27–009 2017

H.R. 1689, THE ‘‘PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS 

PROTECTION ACT’’ 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION 

AND CIVIL JUSTICE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 30, 2017 

Serial No. 115–14 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

MATT GAETZ, Florida 

MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, 

Ranking Member 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIE ́ RREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

TED LIEU, California 

JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland 

PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington 

BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND CIVIL JUSTICE

STEVE KING, Iowa, Chairman 

RON DESANTIS, Florida, Vice-Chairman 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MARCH 30, 2017 

Page 

BILL TEXT 

H.R. 1689, the ‘‘Private Property Rights Protection Act’’ ..................................... V 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Steve King, Iowa, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice ........................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Steve Cohen, Tennessee, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 

the Constitution and Civil Justice ...................................................................... 3 

The Honorable John Conyers Jr., Michigan, Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 5 

WITNESSES 

Jeffrey Redfern, Attorney, Institute for Justice 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 7 

Tina Barnes, Charlestown, Indiana 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 9 

William Buzbee, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 10 

(V)


Insert offset folio 4 here 27009.001
VI


Insert offset folio 5 here 27009.002
VII


Insert offset folio 6 here 27009.003
VIII


Insert offset folio 7 here 27009.004
IX


Insert offset folio 8 here 27009.005
X


Insert offset folio 9 here 27009.006
XI


Insert offset folio 10 here 27009.007
XII


Insert offset folio 11 here 27009.008
XIII


Insert offset folio 12 here 27009.009
XIV


Insert offset folio 13 here 27009.010
XV


Insert offset folio 14 here 27009.011
XVI


Insert offset folio 15 here 27009.012
XVII


Insert offset folio 16 here 27009.013
XVIII


Insert offset folio 17 here 27009.014
XIX


Insert offset folio 18 here 27009.015
XX


Insert offset folio 19 here 27009.016
XXI


Insert offset folio 20 here 27009.017
(1) 

H.R. 1689, PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS 

PROTECTION ACT OF 2017 

THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND CIVIL JUSTICE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:10 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steve King [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives King, Franks, Cohen, Conyers, and 

Raskin. 

Staff Present: Paul Taylor, Majority Counsel; Jake Glancy, Majority Clerk; James Park, Minority Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on 

the Constitution; Matthew Morgan, Minority Professional Staff 

Member; and Veronica Eligan, Minority Professional Staff Member. 

Mr. KING. The Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized 

to declare a recess of the committee at any time. 

We welcome Mr. Cohen, and we welcome everyone to today’s 

hearing on H.R. 1689, Private Property Rights Protection Act. 

I now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

On June 23, the Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision in Kelo 

v. City of New London, held that, and I quote, ‘‘economic development,’’ close quote, can be a public use under the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause. In doing so, the Supreme Court allowed the 

government to take perfectly fine property rights from one small 

homeowner and give it to a large corporation for a private business 

facility. 

As a dissent in that case pointed out, under the majority’s opinion, any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party. The government now has license to transfer property 

from those with fewer resources to those with more. The founders 

cannot have intended this perverse result. 

The public reaction to the Kelo decision was swift and strong. According to the Wall Street Journal and an NBC news poll, in an 

11-to-1 margin, Americans said they oppose the taking of private 

property for public uses. And according to an American survey poll 

conducted at the time, public support for limiting the power of eminent domain is robust and cuts across demographic and partisan 

groups. Justice O’Connor, in a subsequent speech, called the Kelo 

2 

decision scary. Even Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the 

Kelo decision for the five-justice majority, subsequently told the 

Clark County, Nevada Bar Association that if he were a legislator 

instead of a judge, he would have opposed the results of his own 

ruling by working to change current law. 

Well, we’ve taken some of that advice. Well, that’s exactly what 

the Private Property Rights Protection Act will do. This legislation 

has a long bipartisan history. On October 25th of 2005, then Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner and Representative Goodlatte, the current chairman, along with House Judiciary Committee 

Ranking Member Mr. Conyers, first introduced the Private Property Rights Protection Act, which would deny States or localities 

that abuse eminent domain all Federal economic development 

funds for a period of 2 years. This bill was reported out of the 

House Judiciary Committee on October 27th by a vote of 27 to 3. 

The bill went on to pass the House with 365 votes. It subsequently 

passed the House by a simple voice vote. 

The NAACP and the AARP has said: ‘‘The takings that result 

from the Supreme Court’s decision will disproportionately affect 

and harm the economically disadvantaged and, in particular, racial 

and ethnic minorities and the elderly.’’ 

The representatives of religious organizations have stated that: 

‘‘Houses of worship and other religious institutions are, by their 

very nature, nonprofit and almost universally tax-exempt. These 

fundamental characteristics of religious institutions render their 

property singularly vulnerable to being taken under the rationale 

approved by the Supreme Court.’’ 

And the American Farm Bureau, the federation has stated: 

‘‘Farmers and ranchers own and lease significant amounts of land 

on which they depend for their livelihoods and upon which all 

Americans rely for food and basic necessities. As valuable as the 

land is to our members and to the rest of the country, however, it 

will often be the case that more intense development by other private individuals or entities for other private purposes would yield 

greater tax revenue to the local government,’’ close quote. That’s 

the American Farm Bureau. 

Congress’ power to condition the use of Federal funds extends to 

prohibiting States and localities from receiving any Federal economic development funds for a specified period of time if such entities abuse their power of eminent domain, even if only State and 

local funds are used in that abuse of power. 

Such a broader penalty is an appropriate use of Congress’ spending power, as the Supreme Court has made clear that Congress 

may attach conditions to the receipt of any Federal funds, provided 

such conditions are related to the, quote, ‘‘Federal interest in particular and national projects or programs,’’ close quote. 

Under this legislation, there is a clear connection between the 

Federal funds that would be denied and the abuse Congress is intending to prevent. The policy is that States or localities that abuse 

their eminent domain power by using economic development as a 

rationale for taking should not be trusted with Federal economic 

development funds that could contribute to similarly abusive land 

grabs. 

3 

This legislation also includes an express private right of action 

to make certain that those suffering injuries from a violation of the 

bill will be allowed access to State or Federal Court to enforce its 

provisions. 

I look forward to hearing from all of the witnesses today and to 

continuing the bipartisan tradition here in the House of Representatives, maybe even restarting it here today, and of protecting private property rights. 

And I would point out, as I remarked earlier, that I recall clearly 

the debate we had on the floor of the House of Representatives in 

2005, June 30th, when we had a resolution rejecting and a resolution of disapproval of the Supreme Court’s decision. And I went 

down to the front row and prepared myself to rebut Mr. Barney 

Frank of Massachusetts, because that happened often, and I took 

my notes on all that he said and realized that Mr. Frank and I 

completely agreed on this property rights Kelo decision. 

I would also point out that the properties in question in New 

London, Connecticut, are grown up to weeds. They haven’t been developed, and the people that were displaced were abused by this 

decision and by their local government. 

And the very vitality of America’s free enterprise economy is 

rooted in property rights, and without them, capital can’t make 

wise investments and we actually don’t own our homes if it can be 

at the design of someone with more money and more political influence that could move eminent domain against our private property. 

So I am very much in support of this legislation that is before us 

here today. 

I look forward to the witnesses, but I would yield to the ranking 

member for his opening statement. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

This is not one of those black-and-white issues like should we 

have health care for everybody or not, should we extend voting 

rights to everybody or not, those things that are easily understood 

and part of the American way. This is a difficult decision. 

In the 113th Congress, I voted against a bill that was substantially identical to this bill. And I understand the nuances, but I 

still remain opposed to the bill. 

I voted against that bill after I thought about it for a long time 

and considered the arguments. And there are good arguments on 

both sides for the use of eminent domain for economic development 

and about the need for Congress to appropriately intervene when 

necessary. And it was a tough call. As I say, not like health care, 

which it’s obvious that everybody should have health care and we 

should all have voting rights and, you know, women should have 

choice and things like that. 

But, I was sympathetic to those who opposed the Supreme 

Court’s decision in Kelo. In that case, the Court upheld as constitutional the decision of that city to take private property and give it 

to another private party as part of an economic development plan. 

I understand and appreciated the fact that the power of eminent 

domain has been abused by some localities for sure, and it targeted 

oftentimes low-income and minority communities for wholesale destruction. And I think at the time the NAACP was in favor of this 

4 

bill, because of that reason. I think they’ve switched their position, 

but that had an influence on me too. 

And those local governments that weren’t doing as good a job as 

they were were able to do so because such communities were politically marginalized and they were not in a position to challenge the 

taking of property for public purposes, including for economic development. As Mr. King has mentioned, it sometimes was the small 

houses and they couldn’t compete with the powerful developers. 

And that’s unfortunate. Normally, I’m on the side of the weak and 

the poor and what you do unto the least of these. 

However, I concluded that economic development can help everyone, and that those people who were in the worst economic shape 

and had difficulty sometimes getting together their strength to 

fight at the city council level may be the ones that benefit the most 

from economic development, because—not to agree with our 45th 

President, who said, you know, how much worse can it get? We’ve 

seen how much worse it could get. It’s gotten a lot worse with the 

proposals that are made with the budget he’s proposed. 

But the minority communities in inner city are very down in 

terms of economic opportunity, and they do need the jobs. They 

need the economic development that these projects are intended to 

provide. 

So, there’s merit in letting States and localities use eminent domain to develop communities and have economic revitalization. It’s 

sometimes extremely essential. 

My city of Memphis is not among the cities that are doing the 

best economically. We are in the lower ranks of growth, economic 

growth, jobs growth, and we’ve got a lot of areas we’re not—so 

sometimes eminent domain can be helpful in creating economic vitality, and that creates jobs. And oftentimes in the inner cities, 

which are important to keep as a core, because that’s where people 

come together rather than running away—flight to the suburbs. 

So it’s an important issue that helps minorities maybe more so 

than it hurts them. Indeed, using eminent domain can help the less 

powerful communities, marginalized, so to speak, because that’s 

where the problems are disproportionate. 

Just to the point of whether use of eminent domain for economic 

development is a good or bad idea, it was appropriate for the court 

in Kelo to leave that decision to States and localities, interestingly 

enough. States and localities I think should make zoning decisions 

and local economic decisions. That should be a local decision, as 

should medical malpractice, and that should be a State decision, as 

should the right to carry guns, but that’s a whole different area of 

law. 

This is because State and local governments are in the best position to understand local conditions and local needs, which is why 

land use decisions have traditionally been left to them. Sometimes 

the one-size-fits-all Washington answer is not the right answer. We 

want to leave things to local folks. 

In criticizing the Kelo decision, many people have unhelpfully 

blurred the distinction to two issues, whether or not using eminent 

domain for economic development is a good idea on its merits, on 

the one hand; or, on the other hand, whether courts or an elected 

5 

legislature at the Federal, State or local level should make that decision as to the first question. 

The court’s decision in Kelo did not come out of thin air. It 

wasn’t a case of just kind of first impression. It relied on decades 

of precedent to hold that a State or city could use eminent domain 

for public purposes of economic redevelopment. 

The court also made clear States are always free to pass new 

laws or take other measures to limit or prohibit the use of eminent 

domain to give greater protection to property owners, something 44 

States have done in response to the Kelo decision. And that’s what 

the States have done, who know what their communities’ needs 

might be. 

Rather than short circuiting the State-level response, we ought 

to let it continue to develop. There are constitutional issues here. 

Mr. King took a proactive position and said, well, I think it’s constitutional. The Supreme Court has made clear that there are constitutional limits to Congress’s power to condition the use of Federal funds by States. 

Congress may not threaten States with the loss of Federal funds 

to the degree where it coerces a State into carrying out Federal policy. H.R. 1689 conditions the use of vaguely defined Federal economic development funds on States’ willingness to prohibit the use 

of eminent domain for economic development, and threatens to 

take away those funds completely for 2 years if the State doesn’t 

comply. 

Such a total loss of Federal funding may amount to the unconstitutional coercion of the States by the Federal Government. As a 

practical matter, losing Federal funding could bankrupt many already struggling municipalities, is something I find unacceptable. 

For these and other reasons on what is a close call but a call that 

I find is important to just leave to States and local governments 

the decision and decisions that might help the economically depressed more and those that need it greatly. I find the bill unnecessary and problematic and, therefore, I continue to have concerns 

and will oppose the bill. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. KING. The gentleman yields back. 

And the chair would now recognize the ranking member of the 

full committee, Mr. Conyers of Michigan, for his opening statement. 

Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My colleagues, this is an interesting question. And my first observation is that most States are already taking action, and here 

comes the Feds marching in to determine what they ought to do 

or can do. 

I am concerned about the provision in the bill denying Federal 

economic development funds for 2 years. If the States appear to be 

in consensus on the need to prevent abuses, Federal intervention 

is neither necessary nor appropriate. So this attempt at legislation 

to respond to Kelo, which affirmed a city’s use of eminent domain 

to transfer property from one private party to another for the public purpose of economic development. In the wake of that decision, 

there was concern that States and cities could expand their use of 

eminent domain to the detriment of politically marginalized groups. 

6 

And so I think this bill, in my view, unnecessarily intrudes on 

State decisionmaking and violates Federalism principles. 

And I am going to yield to my colleague from Maryland, Mr. 

Raskin, to get his two cents’ worth in. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you so much, Mr. Conyers. 

Welcome to the witnesses. 

It is, indeed, a very engaging and fascinating subject before us 

today. I am particularly interested in what the witnesses have to 

say with respect to developments in the States since the Kelo decision. 

As I recall Kelo, the court set out kind of a typology of answers 

to different kinds of situations. Everybody seems to agree that if 

you have the government just nakedly taking A’s property and giving it to B, that runs afoul of the takings clause. Everybody seems 

to agree, on the other end of the spectrum, that if you have the 

government developing for a public purpose like a bridge or a road 

or a park or what it might be, that it can be taken with just compensation under the takings clause. 

And then the question in the case was, what happens if you have 

a general social purpose for redevelopment of a community or 

neighborhood and you are taking one person’s property that may 

not even be, quote, ‘‘blighted,’’ which has been the traditional justification for doing this, and it ends up in the hands of another private party as part of an overall development scheme. 

And I think what caused so much consternation was the court’s 

validation of a situation like that, that a public use could be defined as being part of an overarching public purpose. 

So I am curious as to what the States have done to protect people in a situation like that. In other words, have they extended 

more State constitutional or statutory protection in a context like 

that, where the Supreme Court seems to have withdrawn Federal 

constitutional protection. 

And then I am also interested, if the witnesses would address the 

question of the utility and the specific efficacy of the legislative proposal before us. 

I’m not sure I totally understand its terms, but the way I basically understand it is that if a State or a locality is engaged in a 

particular redevelopment project that does transfer property holder 

A’s property to property holder B, then no economic development 

funding can come in for a certain period of time, 5 or 7 years I 

think it was. 

And I’m wondering what you think about that as a solution to 

the problem that was caused by Kelo that was so widely understood to give too much authority to local governments to take people’s property. And so is this a good answer? 

If the Federal response is going to be along these lines, should 

it be a discontinuation of any Federal funding for the particular 

project that involves the transfer of one person’s property to another or should it be in general to the whole State or the whole 

community, because I think that there’s some ambiguity in the way 

that the legislation is written. Should it be a cutoff to the entire 

State for any purposes or should it just be for the purposes of the 

particular project? 

7 

Those are my thoughts. And thank you very much, Mr. Chair, 

and Mr. Conyers, for yielding. 

Mr. KING. Mr. Conyers yields back his time and I appreciate his 

opening statement. And I thank the gentleman. 

And, without objection, other members’ opening statements will 

be made part of the record. 

Let me now introduce our witnesses. Our first witness is Jeffrey 

Redfern, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, a public interest 

law firm. And our second is Tina Barnes. Ms. Barnes is a medical 

billing clerk and a client of the Institute for Justice. And our third 

witness is Mr. William Buzbee, returning here, professor of law at 

Georgetown University Law Center. 

Each of the witnesses’ written statements will be entered into 

the record in its entirety. I ask each of the witnesses to summarize 

your testimony in 5 minutes or so. And to help you stay within that 

time limit, there is a light in front of you. And you’ll recognize that 

it is green; yellow, and yellow means you have a minute left; and 

when it gets to be red, we hope you have summarized your 

thoughts, but we want to hear the completion of those thoughts. 

So before I recognize the witnesses, it is our tradition that the 

subcommittee witnesses be sworn in. So witnesses, would you 

please stand to be sworn, and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give before 

this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you God? 

You may be seated. Thank you. 

Let the record reflect that all the witnesses responded in the affirmative. 

And I now recognize Mr. Redfern for his testimony. Mr. Redfern. 

TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY REDFERN, ATTORNEY, INSTITUTE 

FOR JUSTICE; TINA BARNES, CLIENT, INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE; AND WILLIAM BUZBEE, PROFESSOR OF LAW, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER 

TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY REDFERN 

Mr. REDFERN. Thank you, Chairman. 

And thank you for the opportunity to testify about eminent domain abuse, an issue that has rightly received national attention 

as a result of the Supreme Court’s infamous decision in Kelo. 

My name is Jeff Redfern. I am an attorney at the Institute for 

Justice, and I am here with my client Tina Barnes. She is a member of the Charlestown, Indiana, City Council, and she is a resident 

of a neighborhood that has been targeted for Kelo-style redevelopment. 

After the Kelo decision, there was a nationwide backlash, and 

many States passed some kind of reform. But, unfortunately, a lot 

of these reforms were not meaningful and, adding insult to injury, 

government subsidies, including Federal funding, continues to finance these abuses. We’re glad the committee is focused on this 

issue and we hope that Congress takes action. 

When you litigate eminent domain cases, as we at the Institute 

for Justice do, you inevitably get to see a lot of PowerPoint presentations about proposed developments. And they often have beauVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:19 Nov 23, 2017 Jkt 027009 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A009.XXX A009
8 

tiful architectural renderings, things like trendy loft apartments, 

and high-end fitness centers, and organic gelato shops. And the 

public officials that promote these plans, they always claim that 

they are portraying the revitalization of a neighborhood. But that’s 

not really accurate. What they’re really portraying is the wholesale 

replacement of a poor neighborhood with a wealthy one. 

And what is always missing from these pictures is the fate of 

eminent domain’s victims. You see, eminent domain is used almost 

exclusively in low-income neighborhoods. And the people who live 

there simply can’t afford to live in the kinds of luxury housing that 

the developers want to build. 

That’s actually what we’re seeing in Charlestown, where Ms. 

Barnes lives. The developer there wants to replace homes worth 

about $50,000 with homes worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

Many of these people have absolutely no idea where they’re going 

to go. 

The consequences for displaced people are devastating. They lose 

not only their homes, but their neighborhoods, their communities, 

their support networks. And these harms are too often invisible, 

because the victims of eminent domain are literally out of sight; 

they’re gone. 

The use of eminent domain for private development first took off 

during the 1950s and sixties during the so-called urban renewal 

movement. In this period, American cities went wild, bulldozing 

poor neighborhoods, and in the process displacing over one million 

people. Normally, when a million poor people are driven from their 

homes with no idea where they’re going to go, we’d call that a refugee crisis. 

But the public officials who wanted to raze these neighborhoods 

invariably said that they were doing it for the good of the residents. For instance, the Supreme Court in 1954 approved the use 

of eminent domain to redevelop southwest Washington, D.C. In 

that decision, the court said that living in that neighborhood could, 

quote, ‘‘suffocate the spirit and make living an almost insufferable 

burden.’’ Well, the burdens of living in poor housing don’t compare 

to the burdens of being forced out of one’s home and neighborhood 

with no clear idea of where you’re going to go. When the dust settled in southwest D.C., almost all of the former residents were 

gone. And the same story has continued to play out for decades 

around the country up to the present. 

An obvious consequence of this kind of forced displacement is 

economic. The destruction of low-income housing drives prices up. 

One study found that 86 percent of people displaced by eminent domain end up paying more for housing after they relocate. 

Many small businesses, such as corner stores, restaurants, barber shops, they’re completely destroyed, because you can’t relocate 

those kinds of businesses away from your customers. 

There are also noneconomic consequences. One study tracked 

down the former residents of southwest D.C. who had been displaced by eminent domain, and the findings were heartbreaking. 

Five years after forced displacement, 25 percent of the former residents had yet to make a single friend in their new neighborhood. 

Eminent domain doesn’t just destroy low-income housing; it deVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:19 Nov 23, 2017 Jkt 027009 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A009.XXX A009
9 

stroys communities and support structures that simply can’t be replaced. 

Now, I study these issues and I litigate these cases, but I think 

that my client Tina Barnes understands better than I ever will 

what is really at stake when governments are trying to forcibly displace homeowners. 

So I look forward to hearing her remarks and I also look forward 

to answering the subcommittee’s questions. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Redfern. 

And the chair now recognizes Ms. Barnes for your testimony. Ms. 

Barnes. 

TESTIMONY OF TINA BARNES 

Ms. BARNES. Thank you for the opportunity to testify about legislation that will protect the private property rights of people like me 

and my neighbors. 

My name is Tina Barnes and I live in Pleasant Ridge, located 

near Louisville, Kentucky, where I spent the first 17 years of my 

life. Neighbors became family and helped to instill many values in 

me, including caring and helping others. When I found myself divorced, I moved back to Pleasant Ridge. I bought a duplex, which 

is perfect for us. I have a disabled adult daughter, Casey, who lives 

on one side, and my two grandchildren, Taylor and Kenzie, live on 

the other side with me. I had come home and my children were 

thriving. 

Then in 2014, the unthinkable happened. Our mayor wanted to 

bulldoze our neighborhood for a wealthy developer to build an 

upscale subdivision with houses costing up to a million dollars. To 

achieve this, the mayor had applied for BEP funding, which is actually TARP money. He wanted to use Federal money to take everything from us. The application was full of lies. It stated our 

homes were blighted and temporary. Really? They’ve been standing 

for 70 years, through storms, tornadoes, and a hurricane. But 

worst of all, he called us transients. 

As I said, I grew up here, so let me tell you about some of our 

transients. Helen still lives in the same home I went and played 

in. Ms. Smith is a retired school teacher. Here is a woman that has 

devoted her entire life to teaching and now has to worry about her 

home being taken from her. The Brewers have lived here for generations and were a huge part of starting our volunteer fire department and lady auxiliary. 

My cousin Findley and his wife live next door in a home that my 

Uncle Garrison bought about 50 years ago. Their daughter Angela 

lives across the street. The Keiths have a beautiful home and a 

sanctuary for a backyard that even has an irrigation system. We 

are far from being transients. 

The BEP application was pulled, but our mayor did not give up. 

He has now passed numerous ordinances designed to rid the city 

of Pleasant Ridge. One ordinance has been used against the landlords. They have been cited with hundreds of thousands of dollars 

in fines and their only resource was to sell out to the developer for 

only $10,000 per property. Time has run out for some of these rentVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:19 Nov 23, 2017 Jkt 027009 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A009.XXX A009
10 

ers, and they have nowhere to go. Like Robbie, who is bedridden 

with MS. 

It is truly sad watching them leave. Some of the children that 

have left, like Antonio, John Carlos, and Zack, used to play in our 

yard. It has been extremely hard on the adults involved, but can 

you imagine what this is doing to our children? How are they going 

to respect government after being treated this way? Losing their 

home and having the mayor refer to us as a cloud over the city. 

Never would I have imagined that anyone holding a public office 

would refer to people living in their city this way, that a public official would go after a group of citizens using such tactics as this to 

obtain their privately owned property. After all, this is America, 

and one of the most fundamental rights is to own property. 

We have been fighting this battle for 3 years. I cannot even begin 

to explain the amount of stress this has placed on all of us. I’ve 

watched the decline of many of my neighbors, and we’ve buried 

several. Some of them was Barb. She loved to collect salt and pepper shakers. A few had heart attacks, like Larry and Peggy. 

See, the truth is, we know our neighborhood would have benefitted from the BEP funding had it been used in the manner it was 

intended. We ask you to not let eminent domain be used to force 

us out of our homes. We still believe in you, our government. And 

a major function of our government is to protect us, and that protection must include the right to ownership of property. So, please, 

whatever legislation that you must pass to restrict the use of Federal funds to ensure us that protection and prevent us from having 

a fight like Pleasant Ridge battle, please do this. 

And, again, thank you for hearing our story. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Ms. Barnes. 

The chair now recognizes Professor Buzbee for his testimony. 

Professor. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM BUZBEE 

Mr. BUZBEE. Thank you, Chairman King, Ranking Member Conyers, and members of the committee. Thanks for inviting me here 

today. 

I should preface my testimony, saying that I agree that eminent 

domain can be abused, as can any political power. I also agree it 

should be rarely used, and I support many State law reforms to 

limit the uses of eminent domain. 

Those risks of eminent domain, however, don’t logically call for 

a single one-size-fits-all Federal law, especially that would displace 

more context-sensitive and politically informed judgments of State 

and local governments. So I will break my testimony into six fairly 

succinct points. 

First, I think the bill is based on an erroneous reading of the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision. Now, it is correct that the Kelo declined to bar private-to-private takings/transfers. It called for judicial deference to State and local governments to determine if there 

is a public purpose. But first, it did not make radical new law; it 

followed about 100 years of precedent. 

Second, it did not surrender judicial taking scrutiny, it repeatedly emphasized that purely private takings are not permitted. 

And it also again and again emphasized that the case involved leVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:19 Nov 23, 2017 Jkt 027009 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A009.XXX A009
11 

gitimate economic development planning and no evidence of illegitimate purpose. And this discussion, as my colleagues here I think 

have used, that discussion created litigation opportunities if a 

State and local government is pursuing eminent domain without 

the kind of publicly accountable economic development planning 

and public accountable action. 

In addition, Kelo itself welcomed and prompted State law reforms. And many States have, indeed, amended their laws to discourage or prohibit such private-to-private takings, but with a diversity of approaches. I would emphasize that especially valuable 

are the State and local governments that have made sure eminent 

domain follows a very public and accountable process. So Kelo has 

been over-read and States have been responsive. 

Second, about the bill’s constitutionality. I think it’s mostly wellcrafted to fit within Federal power. However, the 2012 NFIB v. 

Sebelius decision did say that conditional Federal spending can be 

unconstitutionally coercive, and so I think important for this committee and Congress to assess the magnitude of this bill’s financial 

threat to State and local governments if Federal economic development funds were forfeited. And I have not found that in previous 

testimony. I think it important to hear from State and local governments about that. 

Third point: Eminent domain remains a legitimate and often necessary regulatory tool. State and local governments are always trying to spur new development, strengthen their tax base, and attract new employers. And very often eminent domain and development efforts do involve efforts to assemble large parcels and an attempt to attract large private employers and large private projects. 

So this bill is targeted not at the exception, but something that 

could have a very, very vast economic impact. 

Eminent domain remains important to address the problem of 

economic holdouts. Sometimes they’re just good faith disputes over 

value, but, as economists and professors and historians have documented, some involve holdouts who strategically try to demand a 

special premium as their property becomes more and more crucial 

to a development effort that is well underway. 

Eminent domain provides the answer. The government has to 

pay, and it has to pay fair market value. So, again, I think eminent 

domain is a bad alternative, but it does have a place and can be 

important in the regulatory tool chest. 

Fourth, does this bill fit into any traditional rationales for Federal regulation? I think it doesn’t. As you look at this bill, this is 

an area where the Federal Government has no special expertise. 

There are no regulatory economies of scale to have this handled at 

the Federal level. This is not uniform Federal standard-setting to 

assess or prevent regulatory races to the bottom, and there’s no 

cross-border harms. In fact, here you are dealing with a situation 

where there’s a diversity of State and local conditions, and that 

generally cuts against a one-size-fits-all punitive Federal scheme. 

Does it make sense to impose a strong anti-eminent domain policy 

on booming and struggling cities? Should Manhattan and Detroit 

be subject to the exact same incentives and threats? I think State 

and local conditions, tradeoffs, goals, and economic needs are generally best known by State and local governments. 

12 

My fifth point, I think that this bill actually does create a problem that people haven’t previously recognized, and I call this the 

strategic super-holdout problem. And that is, this bill would specially empower property holders not just with the value of their 

land, which is always something they can seek, but by being able 

to threaten the loss of all Federal economic development funds. 

A single holdout can threaten really not just to hold up a project, 

but to cause a cessation of major funds that would otherwise flow 

to the jurisdiction. And so this holdout really is specially empowered, and I think that’s a real problem. 

As I suggest in my testimony, I see my time is running out, I 

think one way to address some of these issues would be that if this 

bill is to proceed is that there should be some way for people to 

know, if they have reached a genuine agreement with State and 

local governments, that they couldn’t take fair market value and 

then walk away and then sue. And then similarly, there should be 

a way for people to settle in a way that they know is final. This 

would mean timely challenges rather than waiting up to 7 years 

later. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Professor Buzbee. 

I thank all the witnesses. 

I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

As I listen to the testimony here, I reflect back upon an incident 

that happened in one of my hometowns some years ago, where 

there was a gentleman that farmed right on the outside edge of 

town. He had bottom ground that had a good location with highway 

access, gravel road access, and utilities. He liked farming that piece 

of ground. And Walmart came into town and said, we’d like to 

build a Walmart here on this 17 or 19 acres that was worth probably a thousand dollars an acre at the time. 

And he said, no, I like my farm and I want to live out my life 

doing this. And they kept upping the ante and upping the ante 

until they got up to about $545,000 as opposed to $20- or $25,000. 

And then the five kids flew home and said, Dad, you need to think 

about us too, and he sold the land and Walmart built the building. 

Now, I understand this is private to private. But that’s how eminent domain is supposed to be respected and how property rights 

are supposed to be. What that value of that land is is what it’s 

worth to the owner, not what it’s worth to somebody’s calculation 

on what fair market value is. And that’s why the people that have 

been pushed off their homes, as Ms. Barnes has testified, why it 

cuts so deeply, because it’s your homes, and it’s generational, 

generational homes that you’ve been pushed off of. 

And so when I think of—but a way they might have done this 

with Walmart, they might have then instead said, it’s too high to 

bid this up to $545,000, we’re going to go to the city and propose 

a mall, and now you’re going to get all of this property tax, go in 

and condemn the property, we will take it over, we will build the 

retail outlet. 

And everything is done at a much cheaper price than paying 

what that land was worth to the person who owned it under their 

sacred property rights and sold it. 

13 

So if I see little white square frame farmhouse or a house of any 

kind sticking up out of an asphalt parking lot on a strip mall, that 

makes me happy, because that’s a symbol of the protection of property rights. And when I think of what the Fifth Amendment says: 

‘‘Nor shall private property be taken for public use’’—and I emphasize ‘‘for public use’’—‘‘without just compensation.’’ One thing that 

not only Barney Frank, Ms. Barnes and also Sandra Day O’Connor, 

Justice O’Connor agreed on is that that Kelo decision stripped 

those three words out of the Fifth Amendment, ‘‘for public use.’’ 

And so if the court can strip ‘‘for public use’’ out of the Fifth 

Amendment, how then shall we rewrite the Constitution if we’re 

going to amend it to fix this problem that was created, I believe, 

by the Kelo decision? And do we say we really mean it, for public 

use, or do we concede that the court can ignore the plain language 

of the Constitution itself? Then you can look at the Fifth Amendment, giving them a similar amount of latitude that they took in 

the Kelo decision, and argue that there is really no prohibition in 

the Fifth Amendment for the government from taking private property. 

It doesn’t say you can’t take private property; it’s implied in the 

Fifth Amendment. ‘‘Nor shall private property be taken for public 

use.’’ And so if we are going to ignore ‘‘for public use,’’ then we can 

ignore also the prohibition on taking private property, because 

that’s less specific in the Fifth Amendment than the language ‘‘for 

public use.’’ 

So I am way disturbed by an amendment to the Constitution 

that has been edited by the Supreme Court with a level of impunity. And the impact of all of this breaks my heart, but the damage 

to the Constitution is even greater. 

So I know, Professor Buzbee, you heard my argument on this. 

And I wanted to give you an opportunity to respond and perhaps 

rebut the assertions that I’ve made. 

Professor, here’s your opportunity. 

Mr. BUZBEE. First, thank you. And I agree that eminent domain 

should be the exception. I think it’s completely legitimate for State 

and local governments to look at their conditions and create high 

hurdles to it. I think they genuinely should. 

And so two responses: One is the idea that eminent domain—— 

Mr. KING. To the constitutional principle, though, that I have articulated. 

Mr. BUZBEE. The idea that under the Constitution that eminent 

domain plays a role, the Constitution recognizes it. It has long been 

one of the regulatory pieces in the tool chest. 

Mr. KING. Do you agree that the Supreme Court stripped the 

three words out of the Fifth Amendment, ‘‘for public use’’? 

Mr. BUZBEE. I don’t. You know, the way the court looked—and 

it really is about 100 years and it goes back to opinions by Oliver 

Wendell Holmes. 

Mr. KING. And I do understand that string of arguments, but the 

effect of it has been—and what if we accept that and we look at 

the Fifth Amendment now and we accept for public use is no longer 

an issue. Then do we use our judgment? Because that sounds to me 

like your testimony was we need to use our judgment at local government rather than be bound by the Constitution. 

14 

Mr. BUZBEE. No, no, no. I think that eminent domain remains a 

check—the Kelo case really does set out several kind of toeholds to 

challenge illegitimate takings. The idea that you need a public purpose, which is the phrase that has been used for about 100 years, 

remains in the Constitution and has been well-litigated. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Professor. And I would assert that that’s 

out on the fringes of the argument myself. 

But if the panel would indulge me, I would like to give Mr. 

Redfern an opportunity to respond. 

Mr. REDFERN. Sure. First, I want to note that whether Kelo 

broke new ground doesn’t directly speak to whether eminent domain abuse is a problem and whether this bill can solve it. But I 

think we don’t need to parse the language of Kelo to determine 

whether it broke new ground. 

The data shows that it did. After Kelo was decided, eminent domain condemnations tripled nationwide. That happened because 

developers understood that private property rights had been eviscerated. We wouldn’t have had a dramatic change on the ground 

if there hadn’t been a dramatic change in the law. 

This idea that eminent domain should be a rare exception, everybody says that eminent domain should be rare, that it should be 

an exception, but that isn’t meaningful if it’s still on the table. You 

don’t have any leverage to negotiate if you know that if you choose 

not to sell, the government is just going to come and condemn your 

land anyway. So I don’t think that’s much comfort to property owners. 

And then finally, regarding whether there are any limitations in 

Kelo, we think that there are some toeholds, and we’re working to 

develop them. But so far, under Kelo, it has been no holds barred 

in those States. We’ve primarily been litigating in States that have 

greater protection for constitutional rights. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Redfern. My time has run over, but 

I recognize the ranking member from Tennessee for his questions. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. 

It’s a tough case to make an argument on, but I do think it’s a 

local issue. And eminent domain has done good on many occasions. 

Sometimes it hasn’t. 

Ms. Barnes, in your situation, it sounds like it was maybe not 

done well. Were you elected to the city council after this happened? 

Ms. BARNES. Kind of in the middle. I was elected last year. And 

a new council came along with that, and that was the hand-picked 

people the mayor had chosen other than myself had won. So 

they’ve been able to pass new laws to govern our city that has been 

absolutely targeted onto Pleasant Ridge. 

The first council is the one who voted against the BEP application, and that’s the reason it was pulled. 

Mr. COHEN. And was the mayor reelected too? 

Ms. BARNES. Yes, he was. 

Mr. COHEN. And what is the project they’re putting in? It’s 

homes? You say million dollar homes? 

Ms. BARNES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COHEN. Pleasant Ridge. Is Pleasant Ridge to the folks, is it 

close enough to where the people live in Louisville? 

Ms. BARNES. We now—— 

15 

Mr. COHEN. I mean work in Louisville, excuse me. 

Ms. BARNES. We now have a bridge that has been built on the 

very outskirts of our town that connects us to Louisville, Kentucky, 

which makes it very accessible. There is a huge Ford Motor plant 

that’s just minutes away from us now. And then the other thing 

that has came into play is the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant is 

actually located in Charlestown, and that has been opened up for 

privatizing. So we’ve had a lot of businesses come in there. 

So our mayor looks at our town as the next boomtown. And our 

subdivision, our particular place has 350 houses on it, and it’s very 

localized. We can walk to anywhere in the town and be able to get 

to the store and buy whatever we need to. A lot of our neighbors 

don’t even have cars, because they just walk there. 

But there’s all kinds of land outside of our neighborhood that can 

be used for the same purpose. It doesn’t have to be our neighborhood. We have empty lots all over the place, and they can build 

there. I don’t understand why our neighborhood, to be honest with 

you. It’s just what they have chosen. 

Mr. COHEN. And have they done all the buying of the properties 

in your neighborhood? 

Ms. BARNES. I’m sorry? 

Mr. COHEN. Have they bought all the homes up in your neighborhood? 

Ms. BARNES. No, sir. They have bought about 150, and all of 

those are landlord rental properties. They have not bought any of 

our homes. So we still have about 200 that still is there, not to be 

sold. 

Mr. COHEN. Maybe there’s a reason why it’s called Pleasant 

Ridge, and that’s why they wanted it. 

Ms. BARNES. Well, I think they will change the name, though, 

I’m sure. But they’re not going to, because I’m still going to be 

there. 

Mr. COHEN. Good luck. 

Professor, how would you respond to Mr. Redfern’s argument? 

Mr. BUZBEE. Well, as I understand the argument, they would 

like stronger protections. And the main view is first this idea that 

there was a tripling post Kelo of use of eminent domain. It’s very 

difficult to figure out before and after, with economic conditions 

and the rest. And so I’ve always been slightly skeptical of that. I 

have not looked at it, but I think it’s worth studying. Like if I were 

Congress, I would certainly commission a study to figure this out. 

But my own sense here is that eminent domain can be abused. 

I hope that State and local governments will put a check on it. But 

the idea that Federal Government should prevent all jurisdictions 

across the country from trying to catalyze development and deal 

with the holdout problem I think would be an overreach. 

So, although I think it should be used sparingly and it can be 

a bad idea, it does have a place. And I think that it is not an area 

where the Federal Government brings the special skills or knowledge that it should across the board largely preclude private-to-private takings/transfers under an economic development plan. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. And, Mr. Redfern, just curious, where 

did you teach at prep school? 

16 

Mr. REDFERN. I taught at the Western School For Girls in Pasadena, California. 

Mr. COHEN. I went to Polytech. My first date—— 

Mr. REDFERN. Right down the street. 

Mr. COHEN. Right. Exactly. 

I yield back. 

Mr. KING. The gentleman returns his time. 

The chair would now recognize the ranking member of the full 

committee, Mr. Conyers of Michigan, for his questions. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to point out to you, Professor Buzbee, that the critics 

of Kelo argued that it broke with past Supreme Court precedent on 

the issue of what constitutes public use under the takings clause. 

Do you sympathize with that description? 

Mr. BUZBEE. No, I don’t think that’s correct. If you look at public 

use being defined as public purpose, it goes back to the late 1800s. 

And then there were several previous cases where the court had 

recognized that can include legitimate State and local choices to try 

to further the public purpose where, in the end, eminent domain 

involves private projects. 

Mr. CONYERS. Does this measure, 1689, raise any constitutional 

red flags under the spending clause, particularly given that it 

threatens the State with loss of all of its Federal economic development funding for 2 years if even a locality violates the requirements of this bill? 

Mr. BUZBEE. I believe there could be a concern. I think what 

counts after the Sebelius case as unconstitutional coercion needs to 

be a large amount. But this bill doesn’t actually define what falls 

into this category, and so what you need to have someone do is to 

trace how much Federal dollars flow to State and local governments to see if this is truly coercive. If it is, it could be unconstitutional. 

Mr. CONYERS. That’s true. 

Well, I thank you and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. KING. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CONYERS. Sure. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you very much. 

So, Ms. Barnes, I’ve been in Congress now for only 3 months, but 

I think you are the best witness I’ve seen since I got here. 

Ms. BARNES. Thank you. 

Mr. RASKIN. So thank you for your testimony. It was very powerful. You also have a very good lawyer, I think. I don’t know whether Mr. Redfern represented Vera Coking, but that was an Institute 

of Justice client as well. 

Do you know who Vera Coking is? 

Ms. BARNES. No, sir. 

Mr. RASKIN. Vera Coking is a woman in a very similar situation 

to you. She lived right off the boardwalk in Atlantic City. And 

somebody bought a huge hotel or land and built a huge hotel next 

door and then wanted to create a parking lot for limousines. And 

the name of the guy who did that was Donald Trump. And she 

didn’t want to sell her house. She was exactly in your situation. 

She said, no way. Her house was worth around a half million dolVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:19 Nov 23, 2017 Jkt 027009 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A009.XXX A009
17 

lars. They offered her 400, 500, I think, a million. She said, no, 

we’re not moving. 

So he went to someplace called the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority, one of these shadowy public-private corporations 

set up in situations like this, to try to force her off of the land, and 

undoubtedly would have succeeded except the Institute of Justice 

intervened and represented her and was able to stop that takeover. 

I just found some articles about Donald Trump, who is a master 

of eminent domain. An article in the Washington Post: ‘‘Donald 

Trump’s history of eminent domain abuse.’’ He made a pattern out 

of just this kind of activity. Donald Trump’s eminent domain love 

nearly cost a widow her house. Case after case where he tried to 

force people out, and he bragged about doing it and ultimately 

went to these authorities to try to push people out. 

What does it feel like to be the object of some big wealthy developer’s ambition to take your property and force you out? What was 

the psychological/emotional experience like? 

Ms. BARNES. Anger is definitely on the forefront. Disbelief is 

there. You can’t believe that somebody is just going to take your 

property just to build a bigger, prettier home. Why? My home’s 

good enough for me, and my family. 

Mr. RASKIN. In the Jersey case, Donald Trump said that the 

house wasn’t very nice and she didn’t really care about the house, 

she just wanted more money. How do you react to that? I mean, 

are you in a situation where they’re saying all you want is more 

money? 

Ms. BARNES. Honestly, money hasn’t even played a factor, because we’ve not even spoken about money. But even if it had been, 

honestly, there is no amount of money, because it’s my private 

property. I bought it. I’ve paid for it. My children and I live there, 

and we’re very happy with it. As, again, just because it’s not big 

and pretty on the outside doesn’t mean what is living on the inside. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, could I continue for my 5 minutes? 

Mr. KING. The gentleman’s time has expired and he is rerecognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

So let me ask you, because here’s the tough thing, Council Member Barnes, because you’re a public official as well as being a homeowner in a citizen situation. If they were trying to take over your 

land for the building of a bridge, for example, or a street, would 

you be fighting it equally as hard as you are fighting this takeover 

by a big private real estate developer? 

Ms. BARNES. No, sir, I wouldn’t. I understand those factors that 

would come into with a bridge. I would be disheartened and I 

would be hurt still that they’re taking my home, but it’s different. 

Mr. RASKIN. You would not experience the same sense of wrong 

and indignation that you’ve got about turning it over to a developer 

to build a million dollar condo for somebody who can afford that. 

Ms. BARNES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RASKIN. So the distinction that the chairman of the subcommittee makes here is actually a meaningful one. There is a difference between a public use, in terms of a bridge, a park or a 

street, and a broadly defined public purpose, which is we want to 

economically redevelop and take A’s land and give it to B. 

18 

All right. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Professor Buzbee, let me come to you, as a fellow law professor. 

I should be expected to concur with you here, but all of the 

heartstrings are tugging me in the other direction. I think that 

there is a real difference between something that is a public use 

and just a broadly defined public purpose. 

What would be the problem with Congress saying that we are 

not going to give money that goes specifically directly to a project 

like that, as opposed to punishing the whole State and other municipalities and counties in Indiana? 

Mr. BUZBEE. You know, I think if it were a prospective with notice, that people would have to identify in advance if they were 

using Federal dollars in connection with such a taking, that would 

certainly be less chilling of all economic development involving eminent domain. So that would be much less harmful to State and 

local governments. 

So I think that would be a major difference in the design, but 

that definitely is not what this bill does. 

Mr. RASKIN. I got you. No, I read it too and that’s what jumped 

out at me. Do you think we could define it with sufficient precision 

to map off, to rope off the kinds of cases we see in the New Jersey 

case with Trump’s attempt to take over the widow’s house or in 

Ms. Barnes’ case? 

Mr. BUZBEE. I’m not sure, because I don’t know how much State 

and local governments are careful to track and trace money as it 

moves through. If typical accounting keeps track of all money so 

they know which pool money is coming from, then it might be quite 

easy for governments to say, you know, this money is from the Federal Government, and be prohibited from using it. 

On the other hand, if it goes generally to a department which is 

handling public housing and vouchers and the rest and some development efforts, then it might be difficult to handle. 

Mr. RASKIN. Of course, and that would then argue for the more 

sweeping approach that seems to be embodied in the legislation 

now, which is, don’t go down this road at all because you’re going 

to lose Federal money in general. 

Mr. BUZBEE. Well, I don’t think in the end, it does. Mainly, the 

holdout problem is not just a hypothetical. It’s always there. So 

there are many people who absolutely have good reasons not to 

sell, but there also are people who strategically demand huge premiums to sell. 

Mr. RASKIN. Well, but when you say huge premiums, that really 

is the market. I mean, my property is worth what my property is 

worth to me. I don’t have to sell my house. That’s what private 

property means, right? Somebody might say, well, the market 

would say your house is worth $200,000; but, as in Ms. Barnes’ 

case, this is where, you know, my family has lived for several generations and we love it and we love the neighbors and you can’t 

offer me a million dollars. That’s what happened in the Trump 

case. He thought that his money could buy her, and she said, we’re 

not selling. And so then he went to this, you know, public-private 

corporation to say, force her out, let’s use the power of law to get 

her out. That just strikes me as really antithetical to the constitutional design. 

19 

Mr. BUZBEE. Well, just to respond briefly. 

Mr. RASKIN. Please. 

Mr. BUZBEE. If you look, I think the National Conference of State 

Legislatures and Vermont Law School and a few others have done 

sort of studies of these uses of eminent domain and negotiation. 

And I think there are some where people demanded like 60 to 80 

times the value of their property, because they end up being a 

linchpin piece. 

Mr. RASKIN. I got you. 

Mr. BUZBEE. That’s a possibility. 

Mr. RASKIN. If it’s a real public use, then we define what just 

compensation is, based on fair market value, right? But in a situation like this, the parking lot that Trump wanted to build for limos, 

now that whole property has been condemned. Trump has abandoned it, because of what happened in Atlantic City. So you could 

have forced some people out of their home, forced them to sell to 

Donald Trump at a rate that they never would have accepted, and 

then the whole thing could have gone bankrupt, as his business 

did, a couple years later. I don’t understand how that’s fair. 

In other words, that places a whole market paradigm on top of 

people’s rights. And property means different things to people, I 

think. 

Mr. BUZBEE. I agree. And it can be used in awful ways. And the 

only thing is you have to also assess places where it’s important 

and a good legitimate use. You don’t want to chill all of them. This 

particular bill I think is just too blunt a tool. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chair, I yield back. Thank you very much. 

Mr. KING. The gentleman returns his time. And I would say in 

conclusion that there’s an image in my mind of a bill-signing ceremony for H.R. 1689 where Mr. Raskin and Steve King might join 

together behind the desk of the President of the United States one 

day. 

Mr. RASKIN. And we can invite not just Ms. Barnes but Ms. Coking too. 

Mr. KING. And I thank all the witnesses for your testimony and 

the interchanges we’ve had, and the panelists. 

Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional 

materials for the record. 

This hearing is now adjourned. Thank you. 

Æ