A Mesa, Arizona businessman learned about eminent domain abuse the hard way. When Bailey said he didn’t want to sell his family-owned brake shop, the city tried to use its power of eminent domain to take his property and give it to a local developer in the name of economic development. Bailey won in court, and Arizona passed Proposition 207 to help protect private property from such abuse. The Goldwater Institute developed Proposition 207 and is monitoring its success, and is committed to ensuring that government respects private property.
- Press Releases
- In the News
- Amicus Briefs
- OpEds & Blogs
Prop. 207 right for property ownersPosted on October 16, 2006 | Type: Op-Ed | Author: Thomas C. Patterson
Proposition 207, the initiative to protect property rights, is a great example of citizens using the initiative process exactly the way it was intended. This is the legitimate response of citizens attempting to protect themselves from local governments aggressively encroaching on their property rights, when other attempts to obtain relief have failed.
Reform needed to restore private landowners' protectionPosted on September 29, 2006 | Type: Op-Ed | Author: Benjamin Barr
In the past year, people around the country have become quite concerned about private property rights. That's understandable. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London gave governments the green light to seize homes, lands, or businesses through eminent domain if they could conjure up some better use for the space. That's one way to enhance curb appeal, Soviet style.
Kicked to the CurbPosted on June 16, 2006 | Type: Blog | Author: Benjamin Barr
Governor's recent veto disappoints landowners
Playing the Takings Game: How Government Regulates Away Property RightsPosted on June 13, 2006 | Type: Policy Report | Author: Timothy Sandefur
The U.S. and Arizona constitutions require government to compensate property owners whenever it seizes their land. However, government often passes laws and regulations that depress property values or completely prevent the use of private property, essentially taking the property without explicitly taking title to it. In these instances, loopholes in judicial interpretation of the constitution often allow government to escape having to compensate property owners. These "regulatory takings" became so severe in Oregon that, in 2004, voters overwhelmingly approved a law called Measure 37, which required the government to pay people whenever it conscripted their land for public purposes, even if it did not seize the title outright. This law followed an earlier attempt, called Measure 7, which, despite overwhelming popular approval, was deemed unconstitutional in 2002 by the Oregon Supreme Court. But in February 2006, the court upheld Measure 37, leading many defenders of private property rights to hope that similar reform might be possible to protect home and business owners in other states.
Doughnut HolesPosted on May 10, 2006 | Type: Blog
Appellate court opinion on doughnut shop signage contradicts U.S. Supreme Court