Hey Nate. An amendment just needs a majority "yes" to pass. Virginia has considered something like 14 amendments since 2000 and all have passed.

Thanks for the info Drew. I'm kind of surprised the bar is that low.

Mob rule! :)

Right, a simple majority will pass the amendment but first it must pass two successive state legislative sessions before it can reach the ballot. It passed the Senate twice which is typically the bastion for minority rights so 'mob rule' does not account for the entire process.

These are excellent questions. The Virginia eminent domain ballot item actually does not prohibit very much of anything. It merely establishes a different (and much higher) valuation level for business, vs. residential, property takings. Bear in mind that, under Virginia's Constitution (including the 99% that isn't proposed for amendment) will still permit State and local government bodies to determine that a taking is a public necessity, and the Virginia Ciruit Court is required to defer to that determination absent extraordinary evidence that a private litigant probably could never accrete and present.

Rest easy, Skip. You did the right thing.

The person in office has old money, and LAND so now when WE the people tell the elected officials (person in. office) (i.e.,In 1979 my 1/4 Acre 5000 but now tax bill has it at 100,000. So if the tax payer was to get my land from the courts. They pay not the 5000 but 100,000 plus what future value. and what that means is if your in the elected officials pocket or it there land tax pay buying is by the check be unlimited,but if it the tax pay Joe schmoe getting the funds it be limited to the future that made up to be way less of the funds like 150,000, not the 1.2 mil the elected officials.) I hope you get my point.
You get my point that the tax pay just payed more that you voted in.

send it tome please Harlan.Wahlert@aol.com

... and why after the vote has passed????

Compensation for loss of profits is both right and good. If it seems an undue burden on taxpayers, then perhaps there will be more hesitation and deliberation before exercising eminent domain. There SHOULD be an urgent and compelling reason for seizing private property, and it SHOULD be difficult. And if, as a taxpayer, you don't like having to pay more for the government to seize pprivate property, then you should discourage the government from doing so unless absolutely necessary. Beats me how anyone can possibly think that making it more difficult for the government to seize private property and protecting citizen's private property rights is a bad thing. I would surmise because a small percentage (as evidenced by voting results) are of the "it will never happen to me" school of thought.

The person in office has old money, and LAND so now when WE the people tell the elected officials (person in. office) (i.e.,In 1979 my 1/4 Acre 5000 but now tax bill has it at 100,000. So if the tax payer was to get my land from the courts. They pay not the 5000 but 100,000 plus what future value. and what that means is if your in the elected officials pocket or it there land tax pay buying is by the check be unlimited,but if it the tax pay Joe schmoe getting the funds it be limited to the future that made up to be way less of the funds like 150,000, not the 1.2 mil the elected officials.) I hope you get my point.
You get my point that the tax pay just payed more that you voted in.

Hear, hear!

Thank you for distilling this argument so cogently.

Adding the prohibition to our Constitution ensures that a few-person swing in the General Assembly each year does not undo what Virginians want - to respect private property.

How does this have anything to do eminent domain?

Mario - the amendment had a statement buried in the actual constitutional text that property owners who had property seized under eminent domain are now compensated for lost profits. Andreas statement is just an oddly worded way of saying that in TX there is a current case that is similar. Not the most compelling example in my book but that's neither here nor there. Also not sure that a constitution that can be changed by a simple majority vote is really that strong of a document, which is also neither here nor there.

The standard definition of "eminent domain" requires that the property be taken for public use. A private company taking land for private purposed would not meet the definition. Could the law allow it? Maybe. But still it wouldn't be called "eminent domain". That'd be something else.

But Mario, recall the Kelo decision took private property and delivered it to another private entity. The "public use" excuse was that the community as a whole would benefit from redevelopment, even though the developer never obtained financing and the project never materialized.

Thus, our Constitution needs to ensure such a bastardization of "public benefit" cannot happen in Virginia.

The person in office has old money, and LAND so now when WE the people tell the elected officials (person in. office) (i.e.,In 1979 my 1/4 Acre 5000 but now tax bill has it at 100,000. So if the tax payer was to get my land from the courts. They pay not the 5000 but 100,000 plus what future value. and what that means is if your in the elected officials pocket or it there land tax pay buying is by the check be unlimited,but if it the tax pay Joe schmoe getting the funds it be limited to the future that made up to be way less of the funds like 150,000, not the 1.2 mil the elected officials.) I hope you get my point.
You get my point that the tax pay just payed more that you voted in.

Readily? These have each had to go through the General Assembly process TWICE before being placed on the ballots. They're TWO YEARS old.

Anyone paying attention has had plenty of time to consider.

I didn't mean the legislature, I meant the people who probably did not know that the amendments were on there and cast a vote one way or another. I would have left them blank if I hadn't looked into the issues. What people pay attention to is an important, but different, topic.

Those people, then, are not paying attention to what the General Assembly does. (Which is part of the argument why the Eminent Domain question needed to be codified in the Constitution.)