Bill seeks higher standards to invoke right to seize land

Southeast Missourian

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- The power of eminent domain was intended to allow authorities to acquire land from unwilling sellers when private property is needed for a public purpose, such as constructing a highway or government building.

There is an increasing perception that some municipalities are abusing the process by seizing land from one private owner in order to transfer it to another, often for commercial development purposes.

Critics of the system say developers find it less expensive to convince city officials, eager for the tax revenue a project would generate, to exercise eminent domain and then dictate a selling price to the landowner rather than meet the price that otherwise would be demanded.

"It ought to be based on the free enterprise system," said state Rep. Merrill Townley, R-Chamois. "You pay the price, and you buy it."

A bill sponsored by Townley would restrict the use of eminent domain in dealings between private parties. The House Conservation and Natural Resources Committee, which he chairs, voted last week to forward the bill to the full chamber.

The power could still be exercised for private developments to revitalize areas legally designated as blighted and other limited circumstances. However, government would have to meet a higher legal standard to show that their use of eminent domain is appropriate in most instances.

Several Republican representatives from Southeast Missouri -- Otto Bean of Holcomb, Mike Dethrow of Alton, Peter Myers of Sikeston and Rob Mayer of Dexter -- are co-sponsors of the measure.

Opponents of the bill, such as state Rep. Philip Willoughby, D-Gladstone, say it would hamstring the ability of local governments to retain and attract businesses.

"This could be disastrous for small cities with them not being able to keep industries in their town," Willoughby said. "If municipalities are abusing this there are other remedies."

Surprise defeat

It had been a foregone conclusion that the effort to drop the regional designation from the name of Southwest Missouri State University would succeed with ease in the House of Representatives.

After all, the chamber had endorsed the proposal in the previous two legislative sessions and this year's bill had 102 House sponsors -- 20 more than the 82 needed to pass.

So it was a bit of a shock when, after winning first-round approval, the measure was abruptly killed on an announced vote of 70 in favor and 81 against.

The numerous initial sponsors who voted against the bill included Republican state Reps. Jason Crowell of Cape Girardeau, Scott Lipke of Jackson, Mayer and Myers.

State Sen. Ken Jacob, D-Columbia, said his earlier five-day filibuster against his chamber's version of the bill, sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Peter Kinder, R-Cape Girardeau, raised the profile of the issue and showed it to be more than a simple name change.

"I think that finally this issue was elevated to the point where people tuned into the substance of the issue," Jacob said. "In the final analysis, they determined it was not good public policy."

Opponents contended changing the Springfield school to simply Missouri State University would create another tier of public higher education to the detriment of the remaining regional schools, including Southeast Missouri State University.

Bill proponent House Speaker Catherine Hanaway, R-Warson Woods, said she had been assured the support was sufficient for passage and wouldn't have dedicated 11 hours of floor time to it had she known otherwise.

Between both chambers, the measure received about 37 hours of floor debate, making it one of the most discussed issues of recent years.

Campus relations

A bill that would make sexual contact between a teacher and student on public school property a felony has raised concerns about unintended consequences.

Although no member of the House committee that heard the proposal had a problem with applying the measure at the high school level and lower, the inclusion of colleges bothered some.

State Rep. John Burnett, D-Kansas City, said an argument perhaps could be made for targeting relations between older instructors and younger college students, even in consensual situations. But the lack of an age factor, he said, would also make it a serious crime if both teacher and student were, for example, 30 years old.

"That relationship would be felonious under the bill," he said.

The bill's sponsor, state Rep. Van Kelly, said the measure only applies to on-campus hanky panky.

"What they do off school property is their own business," said Kelly, R-Norwood.

mpowers@semissourian.com

(573) 635-4608