Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/23/2002 08:06 AM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 500-ADVANCE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY CO-CHAIR MEYER announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 500, "An Act relating to the advance acquisition of real property for public purposes." Number 0097 MIKE KRIEBER, Staff to Representative Vic Kohring, House Transportation Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature, noted that he met with Representative Kerttula and discussed the issues brought up at the last House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee hearing. Ultimately, Version F was developed. The committee packet should include a summary of the changes incorporated in Version F. Although there are many new sections in Version F, many of them are redundant. MR. KRIEBER pointed out that Section 2 had referred to a time period not greater than five years for advanced acquisition. That was changed in Version F to refer to advanced acquisition "that will occur in the future." Version F added Sections 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13, which are essentially identical. These new sections address the fairness issue. In other words, if a public entity that acquired a property through eminent domain doesn't use the property for the stated purpose within 20 years, the property owner from which the state acquired the property would have the first right to purchase the property for the same price it was acquired through eminent domain. Therefore, it prevents public sector speculation. Number 0390 CO-CHAIR MEYER posed a situation in which the state, through eminent domain, pays $500 per acre for land. However, 20 years from the acquisition the state realizes it doesn't need the land. Co-Chair Meyer understood that then the land would be returned to the owner for the same price at which it was acquired. Therefore, he questioned whether returning that land back at the price of acquisition would be fair to the state or public entity. MR. KRIEBER explained that if the land [was] acquired through eminent domain, then the property owner would still have interest in the property through the following years. Therefore, the property owner would have the value of the property later and thus the benefit of the [possible increase] in the price of the land should accrue to the property owner rather than the state. However, allowing the state the ability to purchase land and sell it later seems in opposition to the "Fairness Doctrine." CO-CHAIR MEYER remarked that it is probably a good method of acquiring land, especially in order to avoid speculation purchases. Number 0568 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI pointed out that Sections 3 and 4 refer to "reasonably foreseeable future use", but that language isn't maintained in Sections 6, 8, and 12. She inquired as to why the language in Sections 6, 8, and 12 don't conform to Sections 3 and 4. MR. KRIEBER said that was an oversight and thus announced that he would be amenable to changing the language [to be consistent]. Number 0726 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI moved that the committee adopt CSHB 500, Version 22-LS0610\F, Utermohle, 4/22/02, as the working document. There being no objection, Version F was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI moved that the committee adopt the following conceptual Amendment 1: Page 4, line 24; Page 5, line 19; Page 6, line 12; Page 6, line 31; Before "future", Insert "reasonably foreseeable" There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 0891 CO-CHAIR MORGAN referred to page 4, line 10, which specifies "The corporation shall offer the land to the person, or the person's successor in interest, from whom the land was acquired at the same price that the corporation paid the person when the land was acquired." Therefore, could the siblings of an owner who had died purchase the acquired land for the same price as it was sold. MR. KRIEBER replied yes. In further response to Co-Chair Morgan, Mr. Krieber clarified that the provision provides a one- time opportunity when the [state] decides to sell it back to the person who owns the property or who would have owned the property once the owner is deceased. He further clarified that the property would be [sold to the owner or the owner's heirs] at the original value. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA remarked that Mr. Krieber has went far in attempting to make this section of HB 500 fair. She pointed out that the right to hold property and property rights are really fundamental constitutional rights. She expressed her desire not to allow any corporation to land speculate, in particular against the individual property holder. She emphasized that the 20-year limit is a long time during which people will have died, and therefore the first right of refusal to the individual [is important]. Number 1132 REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI commented that in a situation in which an individual had the first right of refusal after 20 years, the speculator would remain in a good position because the speculator would purchase the land at the price for which he sold it for 20 years prior. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA highlighted that this [provision] would only be used in cases of eminent domain when the government takes the land. Although the land may have been owned by a land speculator, it was still their land. She suggested that this will impact those with rights-of-way and such. In further response to Representative Scalzi, Representative Kerttula acknowledged that a speculator could purchase land subject to eminent domain, which can happen now. Once someone owns the land, that individual has property rights. This provision of selling the land back to the owner only comes into effect if the state doesn't use the land after 20 years. She reminded the committee that this is all in reference to advanced acquisition. Representative Kerttula echoed earlier testimony that only those with the original interest in the land are protected. She related her belief that it would probably be unlikely that someone would save their money to purchase the land back from the state. Number 1351 DANA OLSON testified via teleconference. Ms. Olson expressed concern with public utilities and corporations having the right to eminent domain. She didn't believe [public utilities and corporations] have a legal authority [to utilize eminent domain]. With regard to the 20-year limitation and the "foreseeable future" language, Ms. Olson characterized it as too broad. She pointed out that under the "Federal Aid Highway Act" [the state] can't take more property than is necessary, which means that [the state] would have to demonstrate that the property wasn't taken unnecessarily. Since many of the state's projects are federally funded, Ms. Olson didn't believe this bill would work with the federal provision. Furthermore, this bill fails to consider mineral entry; that is mineral entries could be acquired for public purposes. She pointed out that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from rationalizing what property is, which is what this bill seems to be doing. MR. OLSON returned to the "foreseeable future" language that she believes is too broad. She suggested that a regional transportation plan must be in place before any acquisition occurs. She clarified that the burden to show a compelling need to condemn or acquire property falls on the government. She didn't believe the burden [would be met] under the "foreseeable future" language. Number 1619 MR. KRIEBER pointed out that currently no entities have the authority for advanced acquisition of right-of-way. Property can be acquired through a federal funding process. He emphasized that public utilities and corporations already have state authority for eminent domain. This bill merely addresses advanced acquisition. In regard the charge of the "foreseeable future" language being too broad, Mr. Krieber pointed out that Section 3 specifies the prerequisites for taking property. The new prerequisite, paragraph (4), specifies that the reasonably foreseeable use be identified in a development plan. A judge would make the decision as to whether the regional transportation plan met the criteria. Number 1774 REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI moved to report CSHB 500, Version 22- LS0610\F, Utermohle, 4/22/02, as amended out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 500(CRA) was reported from the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|