|
could be allowed in those instances where
there was a showing of immediate and
urgent necessity. You see, the doctrine
of quick take in these companies is limited
to those times when there is that showing
of an immediate and urgent necessity.
Ordinarily, I would think that the doc-
trine of quick take ought not to be granted
unless there is that showing. On the other
hand, I do not think that any power of
eminent domain should in the future be
granted to any corporation unless there
was a limitation of time in order to do the
condemning.
Do not confuse the condemnation power
with the operation power. The operation
power would follow. This only applies to
the time in which the condemnation could
be done and our amendment provides for
such time as is reasonably necessary in
order to do the specific condemning for
special purpose or purposes not to exceed
three years.
Some have said maybe they could not get
a condemnation completed in three years. I
think three years affords in most instances
ample time in which to do the condemning.
I do not think that authority should be a
continuing one. Besides that, there is noth-
ing to prevent the private person or corpora-
tion, if they have not completed their con-
demning within the three years, from
getting another act to extend the time. I
think this power of eminent domain is a
powerful weapon and when it is exercised
by private corporations should have some
limitations.
As I said before, we do not quarrel with
the majority report as far as it goes, but
in this area, we thought that there ought
to be some reasonable restrictions so that
our people would know that if eminent
domain power comes to reside in a local
subdivision, that those local subdivisions are
not going to be let off the beaten track and
be allowed to give a definitely continuing
authority to any group or association.
I think I have covered the purposes of
this amendment, because on the question of
quick take, if you will notice our report, it
was our intention to leave the matter quick
take up to the legislative authority. In this
area, I felt that there is a differentiation
between public use and sometimes what is
known as public purpose. Public use, strictly
construed, to me means that the public takes
it over and owns it for public use.
Public purpose means something a little
different. It means to me that a private
|
corporation or firm can take it over and use
it and own it where the public uses it and
gets public benefit and its so-called use is
for a public purpose.
If there are any questions, I will be glad
to answer them.
[Vice President James Clark assumed the
Chair'}
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
The Chair recognizes Delegate Macdonald.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: In your
presentation, you spent some time on the
exercise of this power, the right to grant
the power of eminent domain by local gov-
ernments, but I notice that your proposed
amendment is not confined to local govern-
ments.
Would you be willing to accept an amend-
ment which would confine this to local gov-
ernments?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I do not
think it is necessary, Delegate Macdonald,
for the reason I first drafted: "No general
or indefinitely continuing authority shall
hereafter be granted."
I think that language without amend-
ment is broad enough to cover any possibil-
ity of local government grants of general
domain or general assembly. I think it pro-
hibits both and it was so intended.
It recognizes the right to grant it but it
limits it. It cannot go on. When they give
them that authority to do their condemning,
they must limit the granting of the author-
ity to such time as is reasonably necessary
to condemn for that particular project and
in any event not to exceed three years.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Macdonald.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: Are pub-
lic utilities which have this power today
similarly limited?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I do not
think all of them are. I think there are
some instances in the earlier days when
possibly their authority to condemn was a
continuing one. And I think some courts
have held that where the franchise is sold
to another group, and the legislature gives
consent, that continuing authority carries
on.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Would the result of this be to favor those
companies now in existence and be to the
prejudice of those which may hereafter be
created?
|
