City officials are joining a fight against a proposed eminent domain constitutional amendment they claim would limit local government protections –– instead relying on civil litigation to resolve nuisance, housing health and other concerns.

However, at least one proponent says the amendment wouldn’t affect local government –– other than make it more difficult to seize land from property owners.

City council members unanimously approved Monday to give $700 to help legally challenge the amendment following a presentation from Maryville City Attorney Doug Thomson.

According to a city document from Dan Wichmer, City Attorney in Springfield, and Gary Markenson, executive director of the Missouri Municipal League, if approved, cities couldn’t adopt ordinances to remove structures based on blight, health or other issues.

Officials also couldn’t enforce building, fire, property maintenance and similar codes.
That means city officials would have to go through civil court, meaning that “enforcement or abatement actions that now take five to 30 days to complete will take up to two years.”

Thomson said during Monday’s city council meeting that property owners would also have to go through civil court, not through city officials, if their neighbors are violating current city codes or ordinances.

“Basically, this is the ‘slum lords bill of rights,’” Thomson said. “This isn’t going to be ‘common law,’ it’s going to be law of practicality.”

However, Ron Calzone, chairman of Missouri Citizens for Property Rights, said Tuesday these arguments are a smokescreen against taking away officials’ ability to take private property.

“They’ve gotta trump up some kind of complaint about amendment,” Calzone said, “because when you’ve got something so black and white, so simple that it’s easily understood by a typical voter, they know they’ll lose.”

He said city officials can still create and enforce ordinances, codes and
already he said residents can opt to sue in civil court regarding code or nuisance violations, also slowing possible abatement if there’s a violation.

“Basically, if it’s the city’s intention to protect the city from a slob, nothing’s changed,” he said. “If the real agenda is to take people’s property along with surrounding property by calling an area blighted, then everything changes.”

To read the proposed amendment changes, go to www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2008petitions/08init_pet.asp.

Officials for and against the amendment are awaiting a decision by Robin Carnahan, Missouri secretary of state, whether the matter will be on the November ballot for voters to decide.

She will make her decision Tuesday, Aug. 5 ––  the same day as the primary election.
No matter what her decision is, Markenson said there will likely be litigation required to resolve whether the matter should be on the ballot.

He said either his group will sue claiming the petition is deceptive in its wording, or –– if Carnahan chooses not to put it on the ballot –– representatives of the Missouri Citizens for Property Rights will challenge her decision.