1
Speech Outline
Private Property Protection Rights
By
Vanessa Posey
Submitted To: Jaballa Hasan
Specific Goal: I would like the audience to understand the need for more aggressive
Private Property Protection rights.
Introduction
I. What is eminent domain?
a. The power of the state to appropriate private property for its own use without the
owner’s contest.
II. What is the requirement to enforce eminent domain
a. “Public use”
I. Roads, railway lines, telephone and telegraph line
b. Just compensation
1. Fifth amendment right
III. Who has the power of eminent domain?
a. The state
Thesis: The vagueness of our Private Property Rights are less served by current laws;
therefore communities should consider current laws, previous cases, and recent passing in
determining the need to seek more aggressive rights.
Body
I. Why are eminent domain restrictions needed?
a. Rich benefit at the expense of the poor
I. Take private property in blighted areas
II. Private property rights cease to exist
III. Land used for pubic purpose
II. What laws protect private property rights?
a. Fifth Amendment
a. No man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
b. Fourteenth Amendment
I. Extended the provision to the states
l. States no originally affected
III. Are current laws adequate?
a. Vague descriptions
b. Too much room for interpretation
I. Public purpose same as public use
IV. Popular case
2
a. Kelo vs. City of New London
I. Proper to take property for public purpose
1. Create jobs
2. Increase tax revenue
3. Revitalize depressed areas
II. Use of eminent domain for economic development does not violate
constitution
b. Who benefits
i.
Developers, private parties, large corporations
c. Development plans included
I. Resort hotel and conference center
II. State park
III. 80-100 residences
IV. Research, office and retail space
d. Purchase
I. 115 lots, 15 owners held out
II. City ordered Development Corporation to condemn the 15 holdout owner’s lot
e. Outcome
I. Supreme court upheld the decision to take the land
II. Congress outraged
1. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor
a. Reversal of Robin Hood fashion
1- Chief Justice William Rehnquist
3. Justice Antonin Scalia
4. justice Clarence Thomas
a. Interpretation of constitution seriously awry
b. Vague promise of jobs and tax returns
III. Paying back rent
1. Owners owe 5 years of rent to city
V. Why important in Texas
a. Homelessness
I. 4,000 homeless in Texas
b. Companion bill HB 16 passed
II. 140 to 1 vote in Texas House
c. Governor Rick Perry
I. Added eminent domain to special session
II. Assure property rights
III. Aggressive efforts
d. Good starting point
I. Only modest protection
II. Vagueness
III. Exception to rule
1. Blighted areas
Conclusion
3
I. We must continue to seek more aggressive Private Property Protection laws
II. Revitalize neighborhoods instead of putting people out of their homes and businesses.
Sources
Hollenbeck, Gina Texas Insider. Texas Legislature Takes Steps to Protect Private
Property Rights: Will approved protections Be Enough? August 10, 2005. Retrieved
October 4, 2005 from
http://texasinsider.org/scoop/Texas_Insider_08_10_05Eminent_Domain_Passes.htm
Mandell, David. Health Resources and Services Administration. (2005) Homeless Policy
Awareness. Retrieved October 4, 2005 from
http://www.hrsa.gov/homeless/pamaterials/pa8/10bo201mandell.ppthttp://www.hrsa.gov
/homeless/pa_materials/pa8/10bo2_01mandell.ppt
Wikipedia. (2005).
Kelo V. New London . Retrieved October 4, 2005 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/kelo_v.
_New _London