In response to the Kelo decision, almost all states have passed legislation or constitutional amendments that limit the power of municipalities to take property for economic development purposes. Elisabeth Sperow, The Kelo Legacy: Political Accountability, Not Legislation, Is the Cure, 38 McGeorge L. Rev. 405, 418-422 (2007). The legislation limiting eminent domain powers falls into several categories; some states passed laws in just one of these categories and others passed more than one type of limitation. First, some states repudiated Kelo by prohibiting the use of eminent domain to take property from one person to transfer it to another person if the taking is for economic development purposes, such as increased tax revenue or additional jobs. See, e.g., Alaska Stat. \u00a7\u00a709.55.240(d), 29.35.030; 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 30\/5-5-5(c); Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 1, \u00a7 816; N.H. Rev. Stat. \u00a7 162-K:2(IX-a)(b); Vt. Stat. tit. 12, \u00a7 1040(a). Second, some states adopted Justice Thomas’s literal approach by prohibiting all takings of property from one private owner for transfer to another unless the property is open for public “use,” meaning public ownership or access. See Fla. Stat. \u00a7 73.013; Iowa Code \u00a7\u00a76A.21 to 6A.22; N.H. Rev. Stat. \u00a7 162-K:2(IX-a)(a); Tenn. Code \u00a7 29-17-102(2). Third, many states passed laws prohibiting takings unless the property being taken is “blighted,” raising health or safety concerns. Ala. Code \u00a7\u00a7 24-2-2, 24-3-2; Cal. Health & Safety \u00a733030; Iowa Code \u00a7\u00a76A.22; Mo. Rev. Stat. \u00a7 523.271; Wis. Stat. \u00a7 32.03(6). See Centene Plaza Redevelopment Corp. v. Mint Properties, 225 S.W.d3 431 (Mo. 2007) (finding insufficient evidence of blight to justify the taking). Fourth, some states regulate takings by procedural measures designed to increase public participation in the process through more hearings or better public notice or through requirements that the taking authority present evidence sufficient to justify the taking. See 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 30\/5-5-5(d); W. Va. Code \u00a7 16-18-6. Fifth, some states require higher compensation than the usual “fair market value” if a person’s home is taken. Ind. Code \u00a7 32-24-4.5-8(2)(A)(owner of a residence entitled to 150% of fair market value; owner of a business entitled to “any loss incurred in a trade or business that is attributable to the exercise of eminent domain”).<\/p>\n\n\n