We talked in the past about House Bill 3 pending in the North Carolina General Assembly, which is entitled: "AN ACT TO AMEND THE NORTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION TO PROHIBIT CONDEMNATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY EXCEPT FOR A PUBLIC USE, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION WITH RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY IN ALL CONDEMNATION CASES, AND TO MAKE SIMILAR STATUTORY CHANGES."

The Bill's title should give you a sense of its contents.  If you'd like to know more, you can view the Bill in its current form.

What makes things a little more interesting is the N.C. Court of Appeals recent decision in Town of Matthews v. Wright. In Wright, the Court of Appeals reiterated that a taking by a local government must be for both a public use and a public benefit; the Town could not show a public benefit, and thus improperly exercised its eminent domain powers.  If the test is conjunctive rather than disjunctive as between "public use" and "public benefit", as the Wright case reminds is true in a local government context, does the amendment proposed by HB 3 removing "public benefit" from the private condemnor calculus actually remove one prong of/obstacle to condemnation?  In other words, in the wake of HB 3 should it become law and as the courts read the laws, will a private condemnor need show ONLY "public use" rather than BOTH "public use" and "public benefit"?  We're not so sure that is the intended outcome by the drafters of and supporters of HB 3, who likely believe the test to be "disjunctive" or, at least, do not want the taking power to be made "easier" for the potential condemnors.

Since we blogged at the time of its introduction, House Bill 3 passed the House in February by a 113-5 count.  It currently sits in the Senate Rules Committee.  The Bill -- which would allow a ballot measure to amend the State constitution -- must make it out of the Senate.  We'll see if it does.  If so, the measure would appear on the May 2016 ballot.