Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Holt Letter

    Uploaded by

    Gazetteonline
    990 views2 pages
    Steve Holt objection to use of eminent domain for pipelines.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Steve Holt objection to use of eminent domain for pipelines.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    990 views2 pages

    Holt Letter

    Uploaded by

    Gazetteonline
    Steve Holt objection to use of eminent domain for pipelines.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    Filed with the Iowa Utilities Board on March 13, 2023, HLP-2021-0003

    Steven Holt
    STATE REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTEES
    Twelfth District
    Statehouse: (515) 281-3221
    Judiciary, Chair
    e-mail – steven.holt@legis.iowa.gov Appropriations
    Government Oversight
    HOME ADDRESS Public Safety
    1430 3rd Ave. South House of Representatives Education
    Denison, Iowa 51442 State of Iowa
    Cell: (712) 269-4042 Ninetieth General Assembly
    STATEHOUSE
    Des Moines, Iowa 50319

    March 12, 2023

    To the Iowa Utilities Board (Josh Byrnes, Geri Huser, Richard Lozier):
    Subject: Letter of Objection; Use of Eminent Domain for CO2 Pipelines

    In a number of areas across Iowa, the proper use of eminent domain has become a huge
    point of discussion as a result of the proposed multi-state CO2 pipeline projects. The route of
    these pipelines in Iowa would impact thousands of Iowans, a great deal of farmland and many
    of our communities.

    Thomas G. West, a Professor of Politics at the University of Dallas, and a Senior Fellow of
    the Claremont Institute, stated for the Heritage Foundation, “Sometimes government needs to
    take private property for such purposes as roads, public buildings, and military bases. The Fifth
    Amendment of the Constitution provides, “nor shall private property be taken for public use,
    without just compensation.” Besides the “just compensation” limit, in both the state and
    federal constitutions, government could take property only for “public use.” Government was
    therefore forbidden, as one federal court stated, to “take land from one citizen, who acquired it
    legally, and vest it in another.” Today, it is routine, as famously shown in the Kelo case, for
    government to take property from one person and give it to someone else who is expected to
    pay more taxes, create more jobs, or build more attractive buildings.”

    The Kelo decision referenced by Professor West was a U.S. Supreme Court case that
    many constitutional scholars believe was decided incorrectly by the court; it opened the door
    for the seizure of private property by eminent domain for economic development purposes as
    opposed to essential government services. The Kelo ruling effectively confused the proper use
    of eminent domain between “public use,” which had always been the standard, and “public
    benefit.”

    The Kelo decision has resulted in private‐public collusion against private property
    rights, since government can condemn private property for the benefit of other private users.
    This helps explain the situation currently underway in Iowa. My deep concern is that if public
    benefit is to be the standard, as opposed to public use (essential government services), then
    private property becomes meaningless in our state, and no one can be secure in their property.
    Filed with the Iowa Utilities Board on March 13, 2023, HLP-2021-0003

    The Iowa Supreme Court, in a recent ruling on eminent domain, aligned with the
    dissenting opinion in the Kelo case from Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, whose view was much
    more in keeping with a narrow interpretation of eminent domain for public use as opposed to
    public benefit.

    Justice O’Connor was joined in her dissent by Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia, and
    Justice Thomas. The dissenting opinion stated, “Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic
    limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private
    property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as
    it might be upgraded— i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature
    deems more beneficial to the public—in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the
    incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render
    economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private
    and public use of property—and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the
    Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.” I could not agree
    more with Justice O’Connor. Under the majority ruling, public use was effectively removed from
    the Fifth Amendment.

    One of our most fundamental liberties as Americans is the right of private property. To
    protect this fundamental right, eminent domain should only be used for public use (essential
    government services), and the CO2 pipeline does not meet that definition. This pipeline is not
    an essential government service for public use, but rather it is a private economic development
    project.

    I do not believe that the blunt force of government should be allowed to be used by
    private individuals seeking eminent domain to seize other people’s property for their own
    economic benefit.

    Respectfully,

    Steven Holt

    You might also like