User:HistoricMN44/113hr1944

The Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2013 or ACRONYM, is/was a bill/law introduced/passed to the 113th United States Congress

Provisions of the bill
This summary is based largely on the summary provided by the Congressional Research Service, a public domain source.

The Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2013 would prohibit a state or political subdivision from exercising its power of eminent domain, or allowing the exercise of such power by delegation, over property to be used for economic development or over property that is used for economic development within seven years after that exercise, if the state or political subdivision receives federal economic development funds during any fiscal year in which the property is so used or intended to be used.

The bill would prohibit the federal government from exercising its power of eminent domain for economic development.

The bill would establish a private cause of action for any private property owner or tenant who suffers injury as a result of a violation of this Act. Prohibits state immunity in federal or state court. Sets the statute of limitations at seven years.

The bill would require the Attorney General (DOJ) to bring an action to enforce this Act in certain circumstances, but prohibits an action brought later than seven years following the conclusion of any condemnation proceedings.

The bill would require the Attorney General to disseminate to states and the public information on: (1) the rights of property owners and tenants under this Act, and (2) the federal laws under which federal economic development funds are distributed.

The bill would prohibit the federal government, or a state or political subdivision receiving federal economic development funds during any fiscal year, from exercising the power of eminent domain over property of a religious or other nonprofit organization because of the organization's nonprofit or tax-exempt status or any related quality.

The bill would direct the Attorney General, if a court determines that a violation of this Act has a disproportionately high impact on the poor or minorities, to make efforts to locate former owners and tenants to inform them of the violation and any possible remedies.

Congressional Budget Office report
''This summary is based largely on the summary provided by the Congressional Budget Office, as ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary on June 12, 2013. This is a public domain source.''

H.R. 1944 would deny federal economic development assistance to state or local governments that exercise the power of eminent domain for economic development purposes or to take property from a tax-exempt entity, such as a religious or nonprofit organization. (Eminent domain is the right to take private property for public use.) The bill also would prohibit federal agencies from engaging in such practices. Private property owners would be given the right to bring legal actions seeking enforcement of those provisions, and the bill would waive states’ Constitutional immunity to such suits. Finally, H.R. 1944 would require the Attorney General to notify states and the public of how the legislation would affect individuals’ property rights and to report to the Congress each year on private rights of action brought against state and local governments.

The federal government provides economic development assistance to state and local governments through several programs, including the Community Development Block Grant Program, the Social Services Block Grant Program, Economic Development Administration Grants, Department of Agriculture grants and loans, and grants made by the regional commissions. CBO estimates that expenditures from those major programs totaled more than $7 billion in 2012 (although, depending on how the term is interpreted, some of those expenditures may not meet the definition of economic development under the bill).

CBO expects that few state and local governments would receive reduced federal assistance because the use of eminent domain for the purposes targeted by the bill would be infrequent. Therefore, CBO estimates that implementing this legislation would have no significant net effect on those expenditures to state and local governments over the next five years. We estimate that additional reporting by the Attorney General would cost less than $500,000 over the next five years, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. Enacting H.R. 1944 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.

H.R. 1944 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), but it would impose significant new conditions on the receipt of federal economic development assistance by state and local governments. (Such conditions are not considered mandates under UMRA.) Because the bill’s provisions would apply to a large pool of funds, the bill effectively would restrict the use of eminent domain by state and local governments and would limit the ability of local governments to manage land use in their jurisdictions. Further, state and local governments could incur significant legal expenses to respond to private legal actions authorized by the bill.

Many states have amended their constitutions or enacted laws to directly or indirectly prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes. Furthermore, the bill would provide several exceptions, including takings for public use, for public rights of way, for utilities, to acquire abandoned property, and to remove immediate threats to public health and safety. While data on eminent domain is difficult to obtain at the national level, evidence suggests that its use solely for economic development purposes is minimal compared to other purposes, such as public infrastructure projects (which would be allowed under the bill without penalty). Finally, CBO expects that most state and local governments would not risk the loss of federal economic development assistance by exercising the use of eminent domain in situations described by the bill.

State or local governments found to have exercised the power of eminent domain targeted by the bill would be ineligible for federal economic development assistance for two years. In those cases, CBO expects that property would be returned or replaced (which would reinstate eligibility) or that assistance would instead be provided to other eligible entities. Any change in the pace of spending would be insignificant, CBO estimates.

Procedural history
Who proposed it, co-sponsors, dates of introduction, sent to committee(s), alterations, voting history, other chamber's actions, conference committee, final passage, signed or veto by president.

Debate and discussion
Media coverage. Organizations and people for or against.