Pillar G · Liberty
Land Use, Property Rights, and Eminent Domain
“Your land is your land.”
Lock eminent-domain protections into the South Dakota Constitution. No private gain via government taking. Stand explicitly against the Summit Carbon CO2 pipeline model.
Where I stand
- Revive the eminent domain amendment. HJR 5001 (2026) required a declaration of necessity and clarified public use before a taking. The House passed it 62-5 on January 27, 2026. The Senate defeated it 14-19 on March 3, and it never reached the ballot. I would have voted yes, and I will support filing it again in 2027.
- Ban deceptive easement practices and end the 'common carrier' workaround.
- Restrict warrantless drone surveillance of private property.
- Stand with landowners against the Summit Carbon CO2 pipeline model.
Pushback, answered
The hard questions, answered straight.
These are the real objections this position gets, with the same answers Zac gives in person. No talking points. No dodges.
“This is a farm and ranch fight. District 32 is the heart of the city.”
The Summit Carbon fight did run through farm country and nobody in this district is cutting wheat. But a property right that depends on your zip code is not a right. The same amendment protecting a ranch protects a house lot in North Rapid and a storefront downtown. And the drone question is not rural at all. Fences and backyards are a city thing. If warrantless surveillance of private property bothers a rancher on ten thousand acres, it should bother you on a quarter acre.
“Strong property rights will scare off development.”
Deals build this state, and a deal means both sides said yes. When a project can only happen by taking land from an unwilling owner for private gain, that is not development, it is force with paperwork. Real public use still works under that amendment: declare the necessity and build the road. What ends is the shortcut where a private project rides through on government power. If a private project cannot get voluntary easements at an honest price, the problem is the offer and not the landowner.
“Landowners already have protections. Why touch the constitution?”
Because statutes bend. They get amended, weakened, and lawyered session after session, and the common carrier workaround is proof of how creative that lawyering can get. The constitution sits where lobbyists cannot reach it, and only the voters can change it. A right this basic belongs at that altitude. Sixty-two House members agreed and five did not, and then the Senate let it die 14-19. That is the gap I want to close. Plenty of people in Pierre say they support property rights. Fewer of them finish the job, and I will file this again rather than let a 62-vote reform quietly disappear.
“A Republican standing against a private project sounds anti-business.”
I am a businessman, and business is two parties saying yes. The things I want stopped are the things no honest business needs: deceptive easement practices, pressure at the kitchen table, and a common carrier label that turns a private venture into a taking machine. Secure property rights are the ground floor of every honest deal in this state. The most pro-business rule South Dakota can write is that here you buy land from a willing seller, you do not take it.