(A) Title. This section shall be entitled the Home and Business Property Protection Ordinance.
(B) Findings. The Council finds that:
(1) In the 2005 decision entitled Kelo, et al. vs. City of New London, Connecticut, et al., 545 U.S. ___ (2005), the United States Supreme Court upheld the taking of private property for uses that would promote job growth and increase tax revenues.
(2) While the revitalization of urban areas, the elimination of blight, and economic development are laudable goals, a municipality's actions to achieve these goals should not result in taking occupied homes and property occupied by a business from its citizens.
(3) The Kelo case expanded the purpose of eminent domain beyond the purposes contemplated by the State Metropolitan Redevelopment Code, the State Eminent Domain Code, and the city's Metropolitan Redevelopment Ordinance.
(4) The Council will not support the use of its powers of eminent domain to take an occupied residence or property occupied by a business that is not blighted or a public nuisance for a purpose that is justified only by "economic development."
(C) Council approval required. Any eminent domain action initiated by the city justified only by economic development that would result in the total taking of an occupied residential property, or property occupied by a business, under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and state law must be approved by the City Council prior to its initiation.
(D) Conditions for approval. The Council shall not approve a taking of an occupied residence or property occupied by a business unless it first finds that the eminent domain action is for a public purpose as set forth in the State Metropolitan Redevelopment Code or the State Eminent Domain Code.
(Ord. 60-2005; Am. Ord. 11-2006)