The protection of private property rights has become a pressing policy issue because of the Kelo v. City of New London decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 23, 2005. In Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that localities could seize private property for economic development because the seizure of these private lands constituted a public benefit -- in this case, increased revenue for the locality.
As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stated in the dissenting opinion, “Under the banner of economic development all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded - i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial for the public - in the process. . . . Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with the Ritz Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”
However, the majority opinion in Kelo also recognized the authority of the states to limit eminent domain power, stating, “Nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power.”
Attorney General McDonnell has called for revisions to Virginia law to ensure that these types of condemnations are not permitted under Virginia law. In addition to strengthening the existing statutes, Attorney General McDonnell has called for a Constitutional amendment to state that taking land for public use "shall not include the taking of private property for the primary purpose of private commercial development or tax revenue enhancement."
Attorney General McDonnell, said, “Our Founders believed that the protection of life, liberty and property was the first duty of government. These proposals will provide the necessary additional protections to prevent the government from taking private property simply for private purposes.”