Office of Management and Budget
Executive Office of the President
  Site Search     
About OMB  
- Organization Chart
- Contact OMB
President's Budget
- Budget Documents
- Supplementals, Budget Amendments, and Releases
Federal Management
- President's Management Agenda
- Office of Federal Financial
-- Agency Audits
- Office of Federal Procurement
  -- CAS Board
-- FAIR Act Inventory
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
- OIRA Administrator
- Regulatory Matters
- Paperwork Requirements
- Statistical Programs & Standards
- Information Policy, IT & E-Gov
Communications & Media
- News Releases
- Speeches
Legislative Information
- Statements of Administration Policy (SAPs)
- Testimony
- Reports to Congress
Information for Agencies
- Circulars
- Memoranda
- Bulletins
- Pivacy Guidance
- Grants Management
- Reports
Site Map
First Gov  

March 15, 2000

H.R. 2372 - Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2000
(Rep. Canady (R) FL and 112 others)

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2372. If the bill were presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto it. H.R. 2372 would shift authority over State and local land use issues to Federal courts, creating a threat of expensive litigation that would favor the wealthy developer over the common homeowner. This shift entails radical changes to the existing legal doctrines of ripeness and abstention, and would result in judicial inefficiencies and confusion.

The Administration is fully committed to the protection of private property, including the payment of just compensation under the Fifth Amendment when private property is taken for public use. H.R. 2372, however, would harm neighboring property owners, weaken local public health, safety and environmental protections, and lower the quality of life in a community by undermining the ability of local officials to protect their communities through local land use planning. The changes to "ripeness" and "abstention" doctrines would allow claimants to bring premature and inappropriate lawsuits in Federal court, thereby shifting authority to Federal courts at the expense of State and local officials. The shift could also greatly burden local officials through the threat of premature, expensive litigation.

H.R. 2372 would violate constitutional limits on congressional power if read, as its supporters intend, to allow for a ruling that an uncompensated taking has occurred even when a claimant has declined to pursue available State compensation remedies. The Supreme Court has held that without a denial of compensation by the State court, a takings claim does not exist. Therefore, the very claims that are supposedly being expedited are likely to be dismissed, resulting in increased costs and delayed resolution of the issue.

Aside from the compensation issues, the bill's administrative finality provisions would raise additional concerns. These provisions would supersede existing case law requiring landowners to obtain a final decision from State or local land use officials before suing in Federal court. H.R. 2372 would require Federal courts to decide takings claims without the benefit of adequate factual records, thereby, forcing Federal courts to render poorly informed decisions. As well, this bill would further delay the resolution of pending claims by channeling more lawsuits into already overcrowded Federal courts.

In summary, H.R. 2372 would improperly and seriously interfere with needed property rights protections at all levels of government, especially local protections for neighborhoods and communities.