Virginia residents voted to pass two amendments to the Virginia Constitution when they went out to the polls Tuesday.
About 75 percent of voters, more than 2.3 million people, voted "yes" to amending the state's eminent domain policies. The measure will prohibit local governments from using eminent domain for economic development and job creation.
The measure was a bit less popular in localities such as Fairfax County, where 62 percent of voters decided to pass the amendment.
Question 2, which will allow the General Assembly to postpone its veto session in the event of scheduling conflicts of religious holidays, was much more popular. About 82 percent of voters, or 2.6 million people, said yes to the amendment.
Update (12:05 a.m. Nov. 7, 2012) Fairfax County residents also voted "yes" to both Questions 1 and 2 by a wide margin on Tuesday.
Approximately 63 percent of Fairfax County voters approved of the eminent domain amendment and more than 80 percent approved of allowing the General Assembly to delay its veto session.
---
Update (9:25 p.m.) Fredericksburg City handily voted "yes" to both Questions 1 and 2.
Approximately 67 percent of voters approved of the eminent domain amendment and more than 80 percent of voters approved of allowing the General Assembly to delay its veto session.
---
Update: Sen. Barbara Favola told Patch today that if the eminent domain amendment passes, the government will have to pay property owners the fair market value for their land plus anticipated lost profits on the property and that taxpayers will have to shoulder the burden of those costs.
"The cost would be exorbitant," Favola said. "It was the kind of thing people pushed because it looked good on a political brochure. It was something they wanted to wrap themselves around. ...We had people who got on a bandwagon."
She called the proposed amendment "bad public policy" but predicts that voters will pass it.
Original: When Virginians go out to the polls Tuesday, they’ll vote on two Virginia constitutional amendments.
The first amendment, known as Question 1, would prohibit local governments from using eminent domain for economic development and job creation. Instead, the seizure of private land would be strictly for public use, such as parks and school buildings. The amendment also requires full compensation of the owner.
The second amendment, or Question 2, would allow the General Assembly to delay its veto session by up to one week in order for the session to avoid interfering with events such as religious holidays.
Patch will update how residents are voting on each question in the table below. Check back at the end of the night to see if the amendments passed or failed, and how your area voted.
These are final, unofficial results from the State Board of Elections; absentee and provisional ballots had not been counted as of 1 a.m. Wednesday, Nov. 7. Additionally, in Manassas Park City, the Precinct One had not reported results by 1 a.m. Wednesday, Nov. 7.
Statewide Results
Amendments Yes Percent No Percent Question 1 2,368,845 74.73 800,895 25.27 Question 2 2,610,911 82.03 571,867 17.97Results by Locality
Question 1: Eminent Domain
Percent Alexandria 30,571 56.82 23,230 43.18 Arlington 44,789 55.27 36,242 44.73 Fairfax 252,847 62.77 149,956 37.23 Fredericksburg 7,076 67.16 3,460 32.84 Loudoun 103,910 69.61 45,366 30.39 Prince William 106,852 79.98 26,750 20.02 Manassas City 11,027 76.77 3,337 23.23 Manassas Park 1,680 75.27 552 24.73
Question 2: Veto Session
Locality Yes Percent NoPercent Alexandria 45,425 85.57 7,661 14.43 Arlington 67,242 84.74 12,111 15.26 Fairfax 319,520 80.45 77,660 19.55 Fredericksburg 8,524 80.40 2,078 19.60 Loudoun 119,032 81.20 27,568 18.80 Prince William 122,756 84.47 22,561 15.53 Manassas City 10,585 76.64 3,227 23.36 Manassas Park 1,777 79.44 460 20.56
I accidently voted for it without really knowing what it means. Eminent domain issues are relatively rare and so I am wondering why VA is considering a constitutional amendment. Interesting also that Bell is the sponsor of this bill and he has high ambitions. There is also possibly a huge case about eminent domain in Southern VA concerning the Biscuit Run property, a multi-million dollar development that is asking for tax credits yet has not paid taxes on time. Also, interesting, the fact that some properties may possibly be lost due to the expansion of the toll road and/or the Silverline. So assuming owners will be compensated, will they be compensated at current market value? What if future value of the surrounding neighborhoods, say, doubles in the near term how would the state of VA assess a proper valuation on these eminent domains? And why, most of all, would that require a change to the constitution - are we expecting a rash of eminent domain issues to come forward? If so, we definitely need some time to hash out what this really means. Just sneaking eminent domain onto the ballot with vague promises of compensation does not appear to be the right way to solve this problem. If given the choice to turn the clock back I would have voted against it. Maybe you should. PS. Eminent domains are not restricted to property, it may apply to a trade secret, a patent etc
(1) Public uses such as parks, roads, schools are okay. (2) Paying fair market value for a property is okay. Taxpayers should pay landowners fairly when their land is taken under eminent domain. HOWEVER, (3) how in the world is it fair to taxpayers to compensate owners for the land PLUS compensating for ANTICIPATED LOST PROFITS of the owner. Good grief, that could be any fantasy of projected use the property owner chooses to invent to get more compensation. NOT okay. (4) If Atty. General Ken Cuccinelli is supporting/promoting this, I am suspect because he tends to go overboard on his pet issues and be exceedingly litigious. Or is he just lining up legal work when he does not hold elective office? Or what? We voted NO because of number 3 above, i.e., not a justifiable use of taxpayer money. Plus #4 -- if Mr. Cuccinelli is for it, we probably do not agree with whatever it is. Even though there are brief descriptions, it is too bad that voters do not have much sense of the ramifications of an amendment like this! Yes, the item has been listed and noted, but no one seems to have really made a case for or against it that would explain situations reasonably to voters. Oh, well. We should be glad we don't have to deal with the extensive and detailed items on Florida ballots!
In 2007, Virginia and 40 other states enacted legislation to safeguard property rights at the state level as a backlash against the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous 2005 Kelo v. New London ruling. Question 1 on the ballot goes further, amending the Virginia Constitution to restrict the use of eminent domain to public projects, as originally intended. Private land could still be condemned for bridges, schools, fire houses, roads, and a myriad of other public uses, but not to hand over to another private entity to build a shopping center or apartment building just because the new project would generate more tax revenue. And yes, why shouldn't businesses who planned to be open for many more years be compensated for lost income? We've seen eminent domain abuse right here in Alexandria. Government officials should not be allowed to condemn private land just so a developer can make a buck off it and share the ill-gotten gains with them in the form of higher tax revenue and donations to their campaign war chests.
Adding the prohibition to our Constitution ensures that a few-person swing in the General Assembly each year does not undo what Virginians want - to respect private property.
Anyone paying attention has had plenty of time to consider.
Thus, our Constitution needs to ensure such a bastardization of "public benefit" cannot happen in Virginia.
You get my point that the tax pay just payed more that you voted in.
You get my point that the tax pay just payed more that you voted in.
You get my point that the tax pay just payed more that you voted in.