Montana Property Rights |
|
|
|
Since the decision by the United States Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London many states across the country have taken measures to help protect the rights of private ownership. The controversial Kelo decision held that a local government can take the private property of one person and give it to another private entity. While the Court’s ruling was seen by many as a serious blow to citizen’s constitutionally protected rights of private property ownership, the decision prompted a number of states to initiate legislative reform to help curb eminent domain abuse.
The Castle Coalition has released a report, grading each of the states based on their efforts to protect private property owners and their rights based on changes in their respective state laws. The Castle Coalition is the Institute for Justice's nationwide grassroots property rights activism project that teaches home and small business owners how to protect themselves and stand up to abuse by governments and developers who seek to use eminent domain to take private property for their own gain. Stated below is the letter grade, as given by the Castle Coalition, along with a description of the changes that have occurred since Kelo v. City of New London. Montana Castle Coalition letter grade ofIn 2007, the Montana legislature passed two bills that addressed the state definitions of public use and blight. Unfortunately, the loose and vague language did not provide much protection for property owners. Senate Bill 41 provided additional language to the state’s definition of blighted areas, but the newly added language did not provide sufficient improvement and still allows a condemning authority to find loopholes to get around the bill. Senate Bill 41 also removed a 10-year private transfer limit for private properties, making it easier for private developers to acquire land for private developments. In addition to Senate Bill 41, Senate Bill 363 was passed, which attempted to tighten the definition of public use for the state of Montana. Unfortunately, the bill ceased to provide much help. Senate Bill 363 removed some vague language and attempted to tighten the definition of blight, but words like “deterioration” and “age obsolescence” are still within the state constitution. SummaryAlthough the state’s attempt to pass new legislation began positive reform in the state of Montana, the state still needs tightened definitions of public use and blight. In order to ensure protection for property owners, state legislators must work to pass amendments that do not allow loopholes for private developers to get around. In addition, a timed enforcement on private to private property transfers will undoubtedly help curb eminent domain. Click to read more about Senate Bill 41 and Senate Bill 363. |
" ...It is so refreshing to know a law office that does what it says it will do...you are truly an expert in this field and I am greatful..."
"I just want to say thank you...for your advice and your time...I am still shocked that you were so generous with your time and expertise and I want to thank you..."
- Natalie Nahey, Portland, OR
"You treated us better than family! [You] came right to our home and went to Madison for us, you were the best! [The] DOT was so smart when they were here; you showed them that the little guy can be right and got us a nice chunk of money!....Thank you so much!"
- John & Pat Schmalz, Menasha, WI
"Biersdorf & Associates has an ingrain[ed] desire to help people!"
"You did more than anyone else ever tried to do for us and no words can truly explain what that means to us."
"I can unequivocally claim that we have been very pleased with the work that your law firm has performed on our behalf. Our only regret is that we did not contact your firm sooner..."
"...Thank You. It is a small thing compared to what you did for me, I still am amazed at your generosity."
"[Biersdorf & Associates] knowledge and experience in the condemnation process stood out."
"Dan listened to me; some of the attorney's I have spoken to around my state do all the talking, but do not hear what we are saying."
"[I was] very satisfied. [We] got more money than the DOT offered. [It was] great working with Biersdorf & Associates."