|
Legislators ponder special session after governor vetoes eminent domain bill
by Rob Poggenklass · News · June 22, 2006
Kaufmann: Vilsack’s former foe a likely donor to governor’s presidential campaign
An eminent domain bill that overwhelmingly passed both houses of the Iowa Legislature this year hangs in legislative purgatory after it was vetoed by Governor Tom Vilsack earlier this month. The veto surprised state legislators and has prompted both Democrats and Republicans to call for a special session, either to pass a compromise bill or override the veto.
House File 2351, which was floor managed by State Rep. Jeff Kaufmann, R-Wilton, would place greater restrictions on local governments who want to claim privately-owned lands for economic development. The bill has been championed by rural residents and criticized by large developers, who often work with local governments to get access to the land.
The bill was passed in reaction to a U.S. Supreme Court case, Kelo v. New London, in which the New London, Conn., Development Corporation seized property from resident Susette Kelo to develop the area around a new plant built in 1998 by the pharmaceutical company, Pfizer. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that, lacking any state law, the city had the right under the Fifth Amendment to purchase the property from Kelo.
The eminent domain bill passed the Iowa Senate with strong bipartisan support, 43-6. It passed the Iowa House by an even larger margin, 89-5.
But on June 2 — after the legislature had adjourned for the year — Gov. Vilsack vetoed it, much to the surprise of both Democrats and Republicans. Vilsack said that HF 2351 would put Iowa at an economic disadvantage with other states. He cited four projects in particular that could be held up by the new legislation — a plastics plant in Clinton, an ethanol plant in Dyersville, commercial property in Burlington and an airport in Pella.
The bill was opposed by Chambers of Commerce in many of Iowa’s larger cities. Both the Cedar Rapids Gazette and Des Moines Register editorialized in favor of a veto. The Register dubbed the bill “city-strangling” and said it would “stymie progress in many communities where growth literally means survival.”
Vilsack has called for a special task force to review the legislation and come up with an alternative. He wants the group to report to the 2007 Iowa Legislature, with the hope that another bill could be passed next year.
“I am confident that we can pass legislation that will further protect property owners’ rights while continuing our progress in job creation,” Vilsack said, in a statement earlier this month.
That was hardly comforting to legislators like Ed Fallon, the Des Moines Democrat who lost a gubernatorial primary earlier this month, and Kaufmann, who thought the bill was already a compromise. Fallon and Kaufmann, both strong supporters of HF 2351, are among the 83 state representatives who had sent a petition to House leadership as of Monday, calling for a special vote to discuss the issue and possibly override the veto.
“Any compromise, at this point, is almost certainly a weakening of the bill,” Kaufmann said. “To go any further is to start selling out people’s dreams.”
The eminent domain bill also has the support of Democrat Clara Oleson, Kaufmann’s opponent in this November’s election.
“Vilsack should not have vetoed the eminent domain bill,” said Oleson. “I have no idea why Vilsack vetoed the bill — that was stupid.”
Kaufmann was particularly skeptical of the Pella airport, one of the economic development ventures named by Vilsack. Kaufmann says it is an attempt by the Pella Corporation to build an airport that would benefit its business, while calling it a “municipal airport” so that the local government can use eminent domain to capture the necessary land.
“People can say what they want about the Pella window company, but it is a good company that creates good jobs,” said Jennifer Mullin, a spokesperson for Vilsack. “The airport will not be owned by the Pella company. It will be a boon for the area.”
Mullin told the Times Tuesday that the bill was vetoed because the governor believes the legislature can do better.
“The solution is to get both sides — both chambers in both parties — and work out a reasonable compromise,” she said.
The eminent domain bill was strongly supported by residents of Peru, Iowa, who are fighting an attempt to use eminent domain by developer Doug Gross, the Republican nominee for governor in 2002. Gross wants to build a resort at a body of water near Peru, while residents there want to keep the place as it is.
Kaufmann said Gross, a registered lobbyist for the Southern Iowa Lake Alliance, made a strong push to attach an amendment to HF 2351, which would have created an exception for lakes. Peru residents spoke against the amendment on the House floor in February. The amendment was defeated, 50-41.
Kaufmann said he’s sure there were huge promises made to Vilsack, who is considering a 2008 presidential run, before the veto of the eminent domain bill. When Vilsack releases his campaign contributions, Kaufmann expects to find a “six-digit contribution from Doug Gross” — the man who ran against Vilsack in the 2002 race to be governor of Iowa.
“I look for evidence that clear,” Kaufmann said. “This is special interest at its worst.”
Kaufmann’s claim was roundly rejected by Vilsack’s office.
“The governor has heard that type of rhetoric before and is frankly offended,” Mullin said. “He has never governed that way. That’s not his makeup and that’s not how he makes decisions.”
Mullin said it is ironic that the governor and his former opponent are on the same side of the eminent domain issue, but she said that reflects bipartisan cooperation, not undue influence.
“The bill passed in the legislature was simply not what’s best for Iowa,” Mullin said.
A call to Doug Gross’ office was not returned before press time.
Oleson questioned the motive for Kaufmann’s assertion and wondered why the freshman representative wouldn’t go a step further by supporting campaign finance reform.
“I do think it is ironic that Kaufmann would make these assertions and yet not be committed to campaign finance reform in Iowa,” Oleson said. “The situation needs to be changed so that these situations or even the appearance of these situations would not be condoned.”
Vilsack has also taken issue with a provision of the eminent domain bill that would allow local governments to condemn areas that are 75 percent “slum and blight,” which includes some residential areas in Iowa cities. Vilsack would like to see a lower percentage in a new compromise bill.
But Kaufmann said that 75 percent was already a compromise — the bill’s backers had wanted 90 percent. He believes the governor is caving to urban interests at the expense of Iowans’ private property rights.
Vilsack’s spokesperson said that while other states have used the 75 percent mark, it won’t work in Iowa because of the lower population density here. Without the ability to use eminent domain in such areas, the governor believes economic development will be impeded.
“The 75 percent requirement won’t work in small towns throughout the state. It doesn’t reflect the true landscape of Iowa,” Mullin said. “It would be tough to find areas that are 75 percent slum and blighted. We just don’t have that density.”
Whether there will be a special session to discuss eminent domain depends largely on the Senate, where leadership is divided because of a 25-25 Democrat/Republican split. The tie has left some confusion as to whether the petitions should be sent to the presiding Senate Democrat, Jack Kibbie, or to the presiding Senate Republican, Jeff Lamberti. Petitions from two-thirds of the members are needed; as of Monday, Kaufmann said that number has been reached but the two leaders each have petitions and have not shared them with each other.
The expense of gathering all the legislators for a special session is also a concern — particularly because it’s an election year and political grandstanding at the Capitol is a near certainty.
“I expect we’d be there for about an hour — after everybody takes credit for standing up for property rights,” Kaufmann said, of the proposed special session.
Kaufmann said that July 1 will be the true test — that’s when Lamberti is slated to hand over the Senate’s reins to Kibbie, according to rules worked out before last year’s session. Kaufmann said the Republican president will be ready on that day to give his petitions to the Democratic president, putting the necessary two-thirds in one person’s hands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
