Wednesday was a difficult day for The American Independent News Network, which is the larger entity that operates The Iowa Independent. Our chief executive and founder announced two of our sister sites would close and their content would be moved to The American Independent.
A recently introduced bill could have far-reaching impact on the U.S. sugar industry, including American Crystal Sugar, a farmer-owned cooperative that locked out 1,300 Midwest workers on Aug. 1.
The chairman for Herman Cain’s Iowa effort says the campaign “relied more on the word of farmers than Washington regulators” in deciding to run an ad containing claims the Environmental Protection Agency says are false.
The Iowa Senate will remain under the control of a slim 26-25 Democratic majority when it reconvenes in January 2012.
State lawmakers are once again weighing changes to Iowa’s eminent domain laws in order to clarify what is necessary for property to be acquired. The legislation, sparked in part by a dispute over a water reservoir in southern Iowa, is currently in a House subcommittee.
House File 64 stipulates that the property acquisition phase of a project cannot begin without signed authorization of the governor. It also changes the standard of proof in eminent domain cases from a “preponderance of the evidence” to “clear and convincing evidence.”
Debate over eminent domain has raged in Iowa for several years. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was permissible for state and local governments to take private property for private business development. That inspired legislation in Iowa to counter the ruling and require governments to prove beyond a certain threshold that taking the property would be for the public good, not simply for economic development.
Gov. Tom Vilsack vetoed the legislation, arguing that curbing eminent domain hurts the state’s potential to grow. His veto was eventually overridden by a special legislative session called that summer, with the House voting 90-8 and the Senate voting 41-8.
Flash forward to today, and officials in Clark County say a new reservoir is a critical public need because the area’s current water supply is being used nearly to capacity. Neighbors of the rural area where the reservoir would be constructed have alleged that the water need has been drastically overestimated, and that the underlying goal of the project is to increase recreation and tourism. The legislation would prohibit eminent domain from being used for recreational projects.
Also included in the bill would be a prohibition on the condemnation of property on the National Register of Historic Places. It would also prohibit any project that receives state funding or assistance through specified economic development, tourism or community betterment programs to be defined as “public use” and adds reasonable attorney fees, up to $100,000, to be reimbursed to the property owner by the acquiring agency.
Jay Byers, vice president of public policy for The Greater Des Moines Partnership, said his organization is opposed to the legislation because it would “increase restrictions rather than ease them.”
“The Partnership supports easing the restrictions on the responsible use of eminent domain to promote sustainable revitalization and redevelopment in slum and blighted areas in urban renewal areas, while preserving agricultural land,” he said in an e-mail to The Iowa Independent.
The legislation is sponsored by four Republican lawmakers — Pat Grassley of New Hartford, Jeff Kaufmann of Wilton, Kim Pearson of Altoona and Annette Sweeney of Alden.
In a statement to The Iowa Independent, the Iowa Farmers Union said the bill strengthens “personal property rights, and provided individuals the resources necessary to protect their land, homes and livelihoods from unnecessary hostile acquisition.”
Follow Jason Hancock on Twitter
Do you know where to vote on Election Day? Do you know what to bring with you? Get comprehensive voter information for your state here.
Sign up for our email newsletter