National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: X. CONCLUSION
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A: SURVEY QUESTIONS." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. The Ramifications of Post-Kelo Legislation on State Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14631.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX A: SURVEY QUESTIONS." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. The Ramifications of Post-Kelo Legislation on State Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14631.
×
Page 31

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

30 APPENDIX A: SURVEY QUESTIONS NCHRP 20-06, STUDY TOPIC 17-05: THE RAMIFICATIONS OF POST-KELO LEGISLATION ON STATE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS 1. Since the United States Supreme Court’s decision in 2005 in Kelo v. City of New London has your state amended its constitution or state code, hereinafter referred to as the “post-Kelo laws,” to restrict the use of eminent domain? If your answer is yes, please answer questions 2 through 9. (Please circle) YES NO 2. Have the post-Kelo laws had any effect on the taking of private property by eminent domain for high- way projects? (Please circle) YES NO If your answer is yes, please explain. 3. Have the post-Kelo laws affected your agency’s use of eminent domain? (Please circle) YES NO If your answer is yes, please explain. 4. Have the post-Kelo laws affected the cost of state highway projects? (Please circle) YES NO If your answer is yes, please explain. 5. Have the post-Kelo laws affected the timely completion of state highway projects? (Please circle) YES NO If your answer is yes, please explain. 6. Has your agency provided any guidance to planners, engineers, attorneys or others regarding takings for highway projects because of the Kelo case and/or the post-Kelo laws? (Please circle) YES NO If your answer is yes, please explain. 7. Have the post-Kelo laws had any effect on your agency’s use of eminent domain with respect to any one or more of the following: (a) project-planning? (Please circle) YES NO (b) appraisals? (Please circle) YES NO (c) land acquisition?

31 (Please circle) YES NO (d) utility relocation? (Please circle) YES NO (e) relocation assistance? (Please circle) YES NO (f) construction? (Please circle) YES NO (g) property management? (Please circle) YES NO If your answer is yes to any of the questions in 7(a) through 7(g), please explain. 8. Have the post-Kelo laws had any effect on public-private partnerships involving highway projects in your state? (Please circle) YES NO If your answer is yes, please explain. 9. Has your department either alone or in cooperation with another agency had a project in a designated blighted area that has been affected by the post-Kelo legislation? (Please circle) YES NO If your answer is yes, please explain. ****************************************************************************** Please return your completed survey, preferably by e-mail, to: The Thomas Law Firm ATTN: Larry W. Thomas 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 Tel. (202) 280-7769 lwthomas@cox.net

Next: APPENDIX B: TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENTS RESPONDING TO THE SURVEY »
The Ramifications of Post-Kelo Legislation on State Transportation Projects Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Legal Research Digest 56: The Ramifications of Post-Kelo Legislation on State Transportation Projects explores the consequences of legislation enacted by state legislatures that limits the use of eminent domain in response to the 2005 United States Supreme Court case of Kelo v. the City of New London, where the Court held that the use of eminent domain to take nonblighted, private property for a city-approved, privately implemented economic development plan was constitutional.

The report examines how state legislation has affected the use of eminent domain for economic development, for condemning blighted and nonblighted property, and for restricting transfers of condemned property to private parties. The report also examines how states have legislatively redefined the concept of “public use.”

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!