Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

I don't think I've seen this mentioned on the forum yet, but in addition to electing our representatives this November, Virginia has two additional questions on the ballot.

The Virginia Eminent Domain Amendment, Question 1 is on the November 6, 2012 ballot in the state of Virginia as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The measure would prohibit eminent domain from being used for private enterprise, job creation, tax revenue generation or economic development, thereby restricting it to only being invoked to take private land for public use. Specifically, it would update a 2007 law which states that private property can be taken only when the public interest dominates the private gain.

The Virginia Veto Session Amendment, Question 2 is on the November 6, 2012 ballot in the state of Virginia as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The measure would allow the legislature to delay the start of their veto session by up to one week. The stated intention of the measure is to prevent the veto session from starting on a holiday.

What didn't make the ballot this year was a question on allowing governors to serve two consecutive terms.

SGB do you have any knowledge of how the questions are worded on the ballot? Sometimes the wording is so convoluted that it's hard to tell what "yes" and "no" really mean.

What? Confusion?

The Virginia Eminent Domain Amendment, Question 1 is on the November 6, 2012 ballot in the state of Virginia as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment.

The measure would prohibit eminent domain from being used for private enterprise, job creation, tax revenue generation or economic development, thereby restricting it to only being invoked to take private land for public use.[2] Specifically, it would update a 2007 law which states that private property can be taken only when the public interest dominates the private gain. It is sponsored by Delegate Rob Bell.

The official ballot text reads as follows:

Shall Section 11 of Article I (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of Virginia be amended (i) to require that eminent domain only be exercised where the property taken or damaged is for public use and, except for utilities or the elimination of a public nuisance, not where the primary use is for private gain, private benefit, private enterprise, increasing jobs, increasing tax revenue, or economic development; (ii) to define what is included in just compensation for such taking or damaging of property; and (iii) to prohibit the taking or damaging of more private property than is necessary for the public use?

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/V ... n_1_(2012)

The Virginia Veto Session Amendment, Question 2 is on the November 6, 2012 ballot in the state of Virginia as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The measure would allow the legislature to delay the start of their veto session by up to one week. The stated intention of the measure is to prevent the veto session from starting on a holiday.

The official ballot text reads as follows:

Shall Section 6 of Article IV (Legislature) of the Constitution of Virginia concerning legislative sessions be amended to allow the General Assembly to delay by no more than one week the fixed starting date for the reconvened or “veto” session when the General Assembly meets after a session to consider the bills returned to it by the Governor with vetoes or amendments?

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/V ... n_2_(2012)

"not where the primary use is for private gain"
It'll just be the secondary use.

Wallace wrote:"not where the primary use is for private gain"
It'll just be the secondary use.

Hey, I'll take that over nothing. One land owner in CT had to go all the way to the Supreme Court just to fight their land being stolen from them and given to another private owner (who was a developer) "for the good of the community".

Thanks for posting the ballot wording SGB. I'm thinking that a yes vote on both will be my way of going. Like you say "I'll take it over nothing,"

Agreed.

I want LIMITED government. If YES is going to do that, then I'm a "Yes" box marking dude!

ShotgunBlast wrote:

Wallace wrote:"not where the primary use is for private gain"
It'll just be the secondary use.

Hey, I'll take that over nothing. One land owner in CT had to go all the way to the Supreme Court just to fight their land being stolen from them and given to another private owner (who was a developer) "for the good of the community".

The Virginia Constitution say this now....

"Section 11. Due process of law; obligation of contracts; taking of private property; prohibited discrimination; jury trial in civil cases.

That no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law; that the General Assembly shall not pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, nor any law whereby private property shall be taken or damaged for public uses, without just compensation, the term "public uses" to be defined by the General Assembly; and that the right to be free from any governmental discrimination upon the basis of religious conviction, race, color, sex, or national origin shall not be abridged, except that the mere separation of the sexes shall not be considered discrimination.

That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, trial by jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred. The General Assembly may limit the number of jurors for civil cases in courts of record to not less than five."

The new amendment will take away personal property rights. The current law doesn't even mention private gain as a possible option or reason for taking the property at all. If amended it WILL allow taking property for private gain as land as long as it is not the primary purpose.

Wallace wrote:The new amendment will take away personal property rights. The current law doesn't even mention private gain as a possible option or reason for taking the property at all. If amended it WILL allow taking property for private gain as land as long as it is not the primary purpose.

Eh, I think Virginia is trying to prevent a Kelo v. City of New London situation from happening in our state. Yes, the wording says that it can't be taken away for private gain being the primary purpose, but if private gain isn't the primary purpose then what other primary purpose does that leave? Some type of economic growth in the community would be the primary purpose right (a la Kelo v. City of New London)? Except the amendment also says it can't be used to generate economic growth (increasing jobs, increasing tax revenue, or economic development) so I think this amendment is trying to take a proactive stance in strengthening personal property rights by clarifying that section.

That single word "primary" is a very key word. The amendment would have been MUCH stronger without that word. It is something that can, and will be exploited.
Why bother going through the process of amending the constitution if it doesnt have the strongest language possible? Its not like we are amending the bylaws of the community pool, this affects everyone that owns property in the state.

I am voting no and encourage everyone else to do so. Tell the legislature to produce an amendment with stronger language protecting property rights. Not this weak attempt at pretending they are doing something.