By: Andrew Forcier of the Independent Journal Review

A bill to put limits on the use of eminent domain, which has made its way through the House on three prior occasions, received renewed life this week. The Private Property Rights Protection Act received a unanimous vote in the House last week — a rare feat in such a politically polarized era.

However, in three prior instances, a nearly identical piece of legislation languished and died in the Senate. Will this year's version suffer the same fate, or will a Republican majority and a relative lack of fanfare give it the legs it needs to survive a vote?

The bill would prohibit states from receiving federal dollars after the taking of private property in the name of economic development, while also eliminating the ability of the federal government to do the same.

Elias Atienza@elias_atienza

“It’s nothing more than a way for one party to get property on the cheap from another party.”
-@Roger_Pilon on the Kelo decision. Read about the House's passage of the Private Property Rights Protection Act in my latest for the @DailyCaller 

House Passes Bill That Would Encourage States Not To Seize Private Property For ‘Economic Develop...

A rebuke to the 2005 Kelo decison

Ever since the controversial Kelo v. New London decision more than a decade ago, states have made inroads to limiting eminent domain abuses at the local level. The argument is that the government, in acting as arbiter of what is sufficient “public use,” makes victims of the less affluent and less politically connected.

It was the fourth time past the post for Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R—Wis.) with the legislation, and his statement echoed the desire to protect the less powerful.

“The framers of the Constitution would be horrified by the paradigm created by Kelo: a government free to seize and transfer private property from individuals with fewer resources to private entities with more.”

The story of the original Kelo case involved the taking of a woman's house to pave the way for a Pfizer office park that was never built. The case was so compelling that this past year, it was made into a film called Little Pink House starring Catherine Keener.

Those associated with the dramatization were delighted to hear news of the PRPA's passage.

Little Pink House@LPHmovie

No eminent domain for private gain! House unanimously passes Susette Kelo-inspired bill! Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner 

House Passes Sensenbrenner Bill to Protect Private Property Rights

Washington, D.C.—Today, the House unanimously passed Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner’s (WI-05) Private Property Rights Protection Act (H.R. 1689). The bill addresses the controversial Supreme Court...

The case was not an isolated one, as even today there are similar circumstances arising in sates like New York, where a community is pursuing eminent domain proceedings to seize a residential property.

The practice even figures in to how the Trump administration would acquire the land necessary to build the oft-mentioned wall along the United States' southern border.

Eugene Volokh writes for Reason that such a land grab for the border wall would do irreparable harm to those involved, saying that “many property owners get less than the 'fair market value' compensation required by Supreme Court precedent, and that this is particularly likely for those who are poor, legally unsophisticated, and lacking in political influence.”