National Wildlife Federation


H.R. 2372, Rep. Canady's [R-FL] "Private Property Rights Implementation Act"
(TAKINGS BILL) will be MARKED-UP and VOTED on by the Full HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE on WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8 and is likely to come to the Floor of the
full House of Representatives the following week.  

UPDATE: HOUSE JUDICIARY COMM. VOTE WED. MAR. 8
HOUSE FLOOR VOTE LIKELY the following week (week of March 13).

A federal "takings" / "property rights" bill (HR 2372) is moving rapidly
through House committee to the House Floor.  A similar bill drafted by the
National Assn. of Home Builders passed the House last Congress (HR
1534).  It is designed to cripple the ability of local governments to
control land use, and engage in zoning, planning, and smart
growth.                            

H.R. 2372, Rep. Canady's [R-FL] "Private Property Rights Implementation Act"
(TAKINGS BILL) will be MARKED-UP and VOTED on by the Full HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE on WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8 and is likely to come to the Floor of the
full House of Representatives the following week.

IT IS IMPORTANT THAT ALL HOUSE MEMBERS, INCLUDING KEY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, HEAR FROM YOU ABOUT THIS MEASURE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.  PLEASE
CONTACT YOUR HOUSE MEMBERS TODAY.  

ALL REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD OPPOSE the TAKINGS BILL BECAUSE:

 >>The bill would harm the property rights of neighbors.  It attempts to
allow developers and companies to file premature property rights
"takings" federal court lawsuits that bypass state courts and local
zoning and land use dispute resolution procedures.

 >>The bill would empower big developers to use the threat of premature,
costly federal court litigation as a club to coerce small communities
into approving projects that will harm neighboring homeowners and the
environment.
                                                                    
 >>The bill would apply to a wide variety of threatened and actual
federal court lawsuits.  For example, state courts have already rejected
unjustifiable "takings" challenges to limits on hazardous waste
landfills, corporate hog farms, liquor licenses and adult businesses.

 >>The impact would be especially severe on the 18,775 (48%) of cities
and towns that have less than 1,000 residents and average annual
revenues of $186,664. Source: Latest available US Census Bureau data
(1992). The costs of defending unjustified federal takings litigation
would be intimidating: lawsuits would rob funding from essential local
fire, police, and environmental protection services.

 >>This bill would certainly have the exact opposite result
from what supporters claim. Inevitably, it would result in expensive,
lengthy procedural litigation that would delay decisions on whether a
compensable taking has occurred.  Federal courts would first have to: 1)
decide threshold issues of whether the Constitution allows avoiding a
final administrative decision and bypassing state courts, and 2) would
have to interpret many undefined terms in the bill.  Recently reaffirmed 

Supreme Court holdings are clear: the Constitution requires that premature
federal claims filed under the bill against localities would ultimately
have to be dismissed or transferred to state court.