The Private Property Rights Implementation Act changes court jurisdictional procedures, enabling landowners and developers to bypass state courts and sue in federal court if local regulations – such as zoning, health, or environmental laws – limit the use of their property. The bill reinterprets the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Under this bill, landowners could more easily argue in court that land use or environmental regulations that affect the value of any part of their property represent “takings” that require compensation under the Fifth Amendment.
The Middle-Class Position:
The Middle Class Opposes. Although portrayed as legislation that protects the rights of homeowners, this bill would severely limit the ability of middle-class citizens to have a say in the character of their communities. For example, if a real estate developer wanted to build a slaughterhouse next door to a residential area and local land use regulations prohibited this, the developer could sue the town in federal court, demanding compensation for the restrictions on his ability to use the property as he chooses. Even if the lawsuit did not ultimately prevail, developers could use the threat of costly litigation to bully towns into relaxing land use, public health, and environmental laws regulations that protect local quality of life for middle-class Americans.
It is particularly ironic that this legislation, which greatly expands the power of big real estate developers to sue local governments, is sponsored by Rep. Steve Chabot, who has also sponsored legislation that would limit the ability of ordinary citizens to bring their concerns to court.
From the Experts:
“Far from achieving its purported objective of protecting property rights, this legislation would only undermine vital locally adopted protections for homeowners and communities and impose tremendous costs on taxpayers…The threat is not limited to land use rules. An array of other protections essential to overall quality of life could be at risk. Existing guidelines and regulations related to public health, housing opportunity, air and water quality, disability access rules, historic preservation laws, and workplace safety regulations could be challenged.” –Clean Water Action, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, National Trust for Historic Preservation, and thirty-three other environmental and community groups (September 28, 2006)
“Zoning regulations are quintessentially local decisions. This bill would cast this tradition aside, and involve the federal government in issues like building density and lot sizes. The bill would also make it easier for developers to sue when zoning decisions diminished the value of their property. Most zoning does that. Developers would make more money if they could cram more houses on small lots, build skyscrapers 200 stories tall, or develop on endangered wetlands. The bill would help developers claim monetary compensation for run-of-the-mill zoning decisions on matters like these… Zoning is not an attack on property rights. It is an important government function, and most Americans appreciate that it helps keep their own neighborhoods from becoming more crowded, polluted and dangerous. If more people knew the details of this bill, there would be wide opposition.” –The New York Times Editorial Board (September 29, 2006)
“H.R. 4772, if adopted, would severely undermine ripeness and abstention requirements aimed at ensuring land use decisions are initially made by those most familiar with the property at issue and with the local public policies. There is no record that state courts generally fail to render fair decisions in land use cases. In the absence of such a record, the Congress should reject H.R. 4772’s assault on prudent principles of federalism.” –Randall T. Shepard, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Indiana, President, The Conference of Chief Justices (July 11, 2006)
Beyond this Bill:
Proponents of this bill sought to capitalize on public concern about eminent domain, however this legislation has no bearing on eminent domain cases at all. Instead, it represents the latest salvo in a coordinated effort to roll back public health, quality of life, workplace and environmental protections that improve the lives of middle-class Americans but may represent an expense for businesses that would prefer to operate without such restraints. Middle-class Americans, who have worked hard to accumulate the property they own, know that property rights are not to be taken lightly. But neither do these rights represent an excuse to trample on the public good as this legislation – and other bills that seek to expand the definition of “takings” under the Fifth Amendment -- would allow and encourage.
Number of U.S. states that registered their opposition to the Private Property Rights Implementation Act: 30
Number of state attorneys general who oppose the bill: 40
Date on which the National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, National Conference of State Legislatures, Council of State Governments and the International City Management Association expressed their opposition to the bill: 6/8/2006
Date on which the National Association of Home Builders celebrated the fact that a similar bill would be “a hammer to the head” of local elected officials: 3/14/2000
Number of American cities and towns which could see their local laws challenged in federal court as the result of this bill: 36,000
Search our analyses of legislation
significant to America’s current and
aspiring middle class, and find out
how members of Congress voted on
those bills.
