Missouri Citizens for Property Rights seeks to restore constitutional protection against private use eminent domain.

About CPR

Amendment Language and summary

Contact

Article I petition sample

Article VI petition sample

Petitioner's Guide (Flash Video)

Petitioner's Guide (PDF)

Volunteer

Businesses: Click here

Missouri Citizens for
Property Rights
33867 Highway E
Dixon, MO 65459
(573) 759-3585
info@mo-cpr.org

DONATE
online

Donations are NOT tax deductible.

Join Email Group




Find a place near you to sign the petition. Type your Zip Code below.
ZIP Code*
Search within Miles
Number record to display
Powered by ZIPCodeWorld™ Store Locator Live

 

 

ESSAYS Please Read These!
Read about the historical perspective of American Property rights. (click here)

How should we deal with “blight”? (click here)

DONATE
online
Donate

Donations are NOT tax deductible
Donate online or mail your check today to:
MO-CPR c/o Richard Westbrook, CPA
205 W Main St
Richmond, MO 64085

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson

Endorsements

The Heritage Foundation
“I endorse the worthy and valuable principals of the Missouri Citizens for Property Rights' proposed constitutional amendment to better protect property rights, and I support the enactment of any proposal like it that prevents abuses of traditional eminent domain powers and provides safeguards against the confiscation of private property for other private uses.” -Todd Gaziano, Director, Center for Legal and Judicial Studies The Heritage Foundation

Property Rights Alliance
“Property Rights Alliance (PRA) commends Missouri Citizens for Property Rights for their efforts to protect private property in the state of Missouri. With the threat of eminent domain abuse looming at the state and national level, it is imperative that organizations and activists work together to protect property owners and small business enterprises from government’s grasp. PRA applauds the work of Missouri Citizens for Property Rights and supports its continued efforts to protect the Missourian property owner.” -Scott A. LaGanga, Executive Director of Property Rights Alliance (PRA)

Reason Foundation
“I have looked at a lot of legislation and efforts around the country to limit eminent domain abuse. Most of them are laudable. But the effort of Missouri Citizens for Property Rights stands out from the crowd. Not only are they meticulous about changing the law to confine eminent domain to true public uses, they put real effort into discussing alternatives to eminent domain for cities dealing with blight and economic development challenges. I am impressed by how they combine a hard line on property rights with an effort to address the public policy consequences.“ Dr. Adrian Moore, Vice President, Reason Foundation (Blog)

American Policy Center
“The threat to private property is real. Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo VS New London, no home is secure. As the battle rages across the country, two approaches have emerged: those who try to appease, consequently doing little for property owner's protection -- and those who are serious about protecting private property from the ravages of Eminent Domain. The effort by the Missouri Citizens for Property Rights takes the no-compromising stand and gets it right.” Tom DeWeese, President, American Policy Center

The Rutherford Institute
"I commend the Missouri Citizens for Property Rights in their work to protect the rights of private property owners. This is essential legislation and should be used in other states to ensure that what happened in Connecticut by way of the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision does not happen again."--John W. Whitehead, President, The Rutherford Institute

The Claremont Institute
“Our government officials seem to have lost their way. The primary purpose of government is supposed to be the protection of the inalienable rights of its citizens, including the right to own property, yet all too frequently planning department bureaucrats, with the sanction of both elected officials and courts, view their role as implementing some communitarian ideal, trampling individual rights for what these bureaucrats believe to be the common good. I therefore applaud the efforts of Missouri Citizens for Property Rights to reinvigorate the protection of private property that the Missouri Constitution has historically afforded, amending the constitution to forestall erroneous interpretations of the long-standing provisions. The restoration of property rights as one of our fundamental rights, deserving protection against tyrannical majorities for all but the most compelling of public use reasons, is an important battle, and I wish you much success.” - John Eastman, Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law

Missouri Property Rights -

Defenders of Property Rights-
“Defenders of Property Rights applauds the Missouri Citizens for Property Rights for their effort to restore the traditional, constitutional principles of property rights in the state of Missouri. Considering the recent tragic results of eminent domain abuse, it is essential that organization’s collaborative efforts work towards returning eminent domain to its appropriate use and prevent private property owners from more unjust takings. Defenders of Property Rights commends the determination of Missouri Citizens for Property Rights in defending property rights and will continue to support their efforts to minimize the victimization of Missourian private property owners as a result of eminent domain abuse.” – Nancie Marzulla, President, Defenders of Property Rights

MEDAC (Missouri Eminent Domain Abuse – Coalition)

Concerned Citizens for Family Farms and Heritage, Doug McDaniel President-

The O’Fallon Old Town Preservation Committee
“The O’Fallon Old Town Preservation Committee is proud to endorse the Missouri Constitutional Amendments proposed by the Missouri Citizens for Property Rights.”

New Life Evangelistic Center

Concerned Women for America

 

Its time to stop Eminent Domain for Private Gain in Missouri!

INITIATIVE PETITION
to
AMEND the MISSOURI CONSTITUTION!

THE PETITIONS HAVE BEEN FILED!

After 2 1/2 years of planning and months of signature collecting, we have submitted the petition to the Secretary of State. Certification of the many thousands of signatures is next, and that process may take up to three months.

Thanks to everyone who contributed money or time!

 

    
Why does the city of Arnold want to take Dr. Tourkakis' dental practice? City counselor says its a matter of decor!

The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the city of Arnold could, in fact, take Dr. Homer Tourkakis' dental practice by eminent domain and make it part of a privately owned retail shopping center.

The dentist's property is in perfect repair and is not in the way of development - it only slated to be an open space - an "out lot". If the city doesn't need the land for the development, why do they want the dental practice leveled?
Tourkakis

In a candid moment on video, Arnold City Counselor, Robert Sweeny, revealed the truth. He said, "His retro fit two bedroom house is not compatible with a 21st century commercial development,"

(See the Jan. 17, 2008 story and video <here>.)

There you have it - it was a decorating decision! The American institution of private property rights is made to give way to decor!

Next time you see some improvements in YOUR neighborhood, don't rejoice too soon - those improvements might make your home or business "incompatible" with the new decor and a target for eminent domain!

Thank you to everyone who donated on Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death!" day!

March 18, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MO-CPR Says High Court Decision Shows Need for Constitutional Changes

Missouri Citizens for Property Rights' chairman Ron Calzone made the following statement regarding the Missouri Supreme Court's decision in the case of Arnold vs. Tourkakis:

"My heart goes out to Homer and his wife, who are now a step closer to having a quarter-century of hard work destroyed by city bulldozers. The high court ignored the clear statement in Article I, Section 28 that 'private property shall not be taken for private use with or without compensation' as Missourians' fundamental protection against private use eminent domain."

"The court instead stretched the application of Article VI, Section 21, despite plain language limiting those powers to chartered cities. This illogical decision puts hundreds of thousands of Missourians' property rights in greater danger."

"That's not the worst of it, though. In the majority opinion, the court wrote, 'Unless limited by the constitution, the legislature has the right to authorize the exercise of the unlimited and practically absolute sovereign power of eminent domain.'"

"Like the US Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo decision, this decision proves that we cannot rely on the courts to protect our property rights. Only our ballot initiative, which unequivocally outlaws eminent domain for private profit, will reverse the Supreme Court's wrongheaded decision and give property owners the protections they deserve. We are grateful that in the midst of his legal battle with the city, Homer has found the time to support our effort to gather the signatures to put these amendments on the ballot. Homer's determination to fight for not only his own property rights but those of his fellow Missourian's is a real inspiration."

Link to the court decision

Link to Institute for Justice press release

MO-CPR page for this case

Go to THIS PAGE to read the stories of some fellow Missourians who are fighting eminent domain abuse.

This video is a short explanation of the problem built into the
Missouri Constitution - the very problem that needs to be fixed.

HOT OFF THE PRESS! The Wall Street Journal reports a new study from the Institute for Justice which reveals that eminent domain reform does NOT hinder economic development.

Eminent Reality (Wall Street Journal)
January 30, 2008 -- Does restricting "eminent domain" -- the power of government to seize private property -- harm economic growth? A new report from the Institute for Justice looks at the evidence and concludes the answer is no. <more>

Click here For the Institute for Justice study: "Doomsday? No Way - Economic Trends and Post-Kelo Eminent Domain Reform"

SELECT VIDEO

(Fox-2-StL) Jan. 22, 2008: Sunset Hills, Mo. -- You Paid For It: Eminent Domain
Fox 2's Elliott Davis continues to shed light on the private use eminent domain issue. Here he reports on the Ballot Initiative.

This report from Fox 4 in KC explains the issue VERY well. Be sure to watch the video. (Click Here)

(Click here for a list of News Reports)

LANDMARK MISSOURI SUPREME COURT CASE
DECISION DUE LATE WINTER OR SPRING OF 2008

Missouri Supreme Court Heard Oral Arguments in Landmark Eminent Domain Case
on Thursday, January 17, 2008

The city's lawyer makes wild claims about the effects of a ruling in favor of Property Rights and obfuscates the issue. An analysis of the case is forthcoming, but you can listen to the oral arguments and read the court documents by clicking here.

Old News: MO-CPR helps Arnold, MO businesses man score a huge victory in court. Property owners in non-chartered cities across the state benefit. <more>

Flash video Petitioner's Guide
Turn your speakers up and watch this easy to understand guide to collecting signatures: Start Here

History! Click here to watch a Flash presentation about the history of property rights in America. Turn your speakers on and find out how the War for American Independence relates to eminent domain abuse. Click Here

We need YOUR help!

Click Here to Volunteer

Businesses: Click Here for your business to become a Petition Signing Station.

What will the proposed constitutional amendments do?

Missouri Citizens for Property Rights is not proposing that we do anything new or revolutionary – we simply want to restore the traditional, time tested, concepts of property rights. We believe that the primary role of government is that of protecting property rights and that eminent domain should be used only rarely and only for truly public uses, such as roads and sewers.

Eminent domain has traditionally been called “the despotic power”. When it must be used for a truly public use, every safeguard to the rights of the one losing his property should be employed. He should have the right to due process prior to losing his property and should be well compensated for his loss. After all, if the public use will truly benefit the masses, the rest of us should be willing to each chip in a little to minimize the suffering of the one making the sacrifice.

Perhaps of greatest importance, Missouri's constitutional provisions for protecting property rights should protect everyone's rights equally. We should accept no less than “justice for all” whether they be rich or poor, home owners or businesses, urban or rural. And the state's awesome power of eminent domain should never be conveyed to private entities for their personal profit!

Here are some details about the proposed amendments to Missouri's constitution:

THE FIRST PETITION

Ballot Title (Written by the Secretary of State)
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to restrict the use of eminent domain by:

  • Allowing only government entities to use eminent domain;

  • Prohibiting its use for private purposes, with certain exceptions for utilities;

  • Requiring that any taking of property be necessary for a public use and that landowners receive just compensation;

  • Requiring that the intended public use be declared at the time of the taking and permitting the original owners to repurchase the property if it is not so used within five years or if the property is offered for sale within 20 years?

Article I, Section 26 Explanation

  1. Limit eminent domain authority to the state and its political subdivisions.

  2. Require just compensation when property rights are “taken” or damaged indirectly..
  3. Limits the use of eminent domain to situations in which it is necessary to use that power.
  4. Allow normal appraisal methods to be considered in determining “just compensation”.
  5. Require due process before property can be taken or disturbed by the taking authority.

Article I, Section 28 Explanation

  1. Prohibits the use of eminent domain for “private use, private ownership, or other private rights” and ensures that those uses are not considered “public use”.

  2. Discourages the government from “hoarding” or speculating on property through eminent domain for longer than 5 years through a buy back provision.
  3. Discourages a feigned public purpose at the time of taking and subsequent conveying to a private party by allowing the original owner an opportunity to buy back his property if the government attempts to sell it within 20 years.
  4. Ensures regulated utilities and electric cooperatives the ability to provide their services, but a government entity must use eminent domain on their behalf and the title remains in the original owner, “subject to the use for which it was taken”. Privately owned utilities will no longer be able to directly wield the people's power of eminent domain.
  5. A “notwithstanding” clause to keep Art VI, Sec. 21 from “trumping” these provisions.

THE SECOND PETITION

Ballot Title (Written by the Secretary of State)
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to change the power of the General Assembly and constitutionally chartered cities or counties to:

  • Prohibit the use of eminent domain to acquire and resell property found to be blighted, substandard or unsanitary for the purpose of clearance, redevelopment or rehabilitation; and

  • Allow them to require owners of property found to be a public nuisance to abate or clean up the nuisance and, if the property owner fails to do so in a reasonable time, allow the local government to pay for the abatement and impose a lien to recover the cost?

Article VI, Section 21 Explanation

  1. Provide a remedy for “blight” and other public nuisances, but shift the role of the government to that of protecting the property rights of the neighbors of those conditions rather then punishing the responsible property owners along with the abusers.

  2. Limits those nuisances to those historically considered so, that is, only conditions that negatively affect the property rights of another.
  3. This change reestablishes the appropriate distinction between police powers and eminent domain powers.
  4. Provide for a reasonable opportunity to abate the nuisance before action is taken.
  5. Permit the expenditure of public funds to protect the neighbors and prescribes the due process protection for the “offending” property owner.

Amendment Language PDF

For more information, Ron Calzone can be contacted at ron@mo-cpr.org.