Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 120
02/03/2006 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Commission on Judicial Conduct | |
| Violent Crimes Compensation Board | |
| HB318 | |
| HB150 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 353 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 318 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 150 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 172 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 318 - LIMITATION ON EMINENT DOMAIN 1:39:46 PM CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 318, "An Act limiting the exercise of eminent domain." [Before the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 318, Version 24-LS1083\L, Bullock, 1/24/06, which was adopted as a work draft on 1/25/06.] CHAIR McGUIRE, speaking as one of the bill's prime sponsors, relayed that staff was available to assist with explanations regarding the proposed amendments to [Version L]. CRAIG JOHNSON, Staff to Representative Lesil McGuire, Alaska State Legislature, one of the prime sponsors of HB 318, on behalf of Representative McGuire, indicated that a representative from the Department of Law was also available to assist with explanations of proposed amendments. CHAIR McGUIRE referred to Amendment 1, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 2, line 8: Delete "(1)" Page 2, line 10: Delete ";" Insert "." Page 2, lines 11 - 12: Delete all material. Page 3, line 24: Delete "or entity" Page 4, lines 11 - 14: Delete all material and insert: "(7) the legislature has approved by law the transfer of private property." Page 5, lines 8 - 9: Delete all material. Page 5, line 10: Delete "(6)" Insert "(5)" Page 5, line 19, following "(i)": Insert "a highway, or" Page 6, line 2: Delete "the purpose for" REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that Amendment 1 be divided to facilitate explanation and discussion; he began dividing Amendment 1. PETER PUTZIER, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Transportation Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law (DOL), began assisting with the explanation of the division of Amendment 1. The committee took an at-ease from 1:45 p.m. to 1:46 p.m. 1:46:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that the portion of Amendment 1 altering page 2, lines 8, 10, and 11-12, and page 5, lines 8-9, of Version L would be referred to as Amendment 1a; the portion of Amendment 1 altering page 3, line 24, of Version L would be referred to as Amendment 1b; the portion of Amendment 1 altering page 4, lines 11-14, of Version L would be referred to as Amendment 1c; the portion of Amendment 1 altering page 5, lines 10 and 19, of Version L would be referred to as Amendment 1d; and the portion of Amendment 1 altering page 6, line 2, of Version L would be referred to as Amendment 1e. MR. PUTZIER, remarking that most of the changes proposed via Amendment 1 are technical changes, explained that Amendment 1a deletes the definition of "public use" from the legislative intent section and [Section 3, subsection (f)]; he offered his understanding that this same definition is already contained [in existing statute]. He explained that Amendment 1b deletes the phrase "or entity" because AS 01.10.060 already defines "person". Amendment 1c provides that transfers of property from one private person to another private person are not allowed unless the legislature has approved, by law, transfers of such property - this is essentially a legislative authorization clause. Amendment 1d clarifies that highways are not recreational facilities or projects regardless of whether they have a scenic component. Amendment 1e corrects clerical error. 1:50:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendments 1a-1e [en bloc]. There being no objection, Amendments 1a-1e were adopted [en bloc]. REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 4, line 19 after "individual landowner's personal residence" Insert: "however, the power of eminent domain may be exercised for trails used for foot or wheeled travel if the land is necessary to make construction or expansion of the trail economically feasible, and no reasonable alternative exists that allows for a trail of similar public benefit; or where necessary for access to an area for hunting purposes; or where necessary for access to or along segments of a waterway or lake used for fishing, boating or other recreational uses." CHAIR McGUIRE objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that Conceptual Amendment 2 pertains to whether eminent domain may be used to obtain recreational lands. Under Conceptual Amendment 2, eminent domain may be used only when it is necessary to acquire lands for a recreational trail that is wanted by a community, and to acquire lands to allow access to fishing streams, hunting areas, and similar recreational lands. He said he is worried that as time goes on there will be less and less access to fishing streams and hunting areas, and so he doesn't want to preclude the state from ever using eminent domain to provide public access [to those areas]. He noted that the state currently has the power to use eminent domain [for these purposes] but it is rarely used, and that he's not heard of any instances in which it has been abused. Under Conceptual Amendment 2, the state will have to show that there is no reasonable alternative to taking a particular piece of private property. 1:54:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON noted that the definition of the phrase, "only when necessary", could be different for different people. She asked Representative Gara what he means when using the phrase, "access to". REPRESENTATIVE GARA noted that current law regarding eminent domain sometimes uses the term "necessary", and surmised that determining whether taking a particular piece of property via eminent domain is "necessary" will be determined on a case-by- case basis. Conceptual Amendment 2, he offered, is saying that if it is really necessary to use eminent domain to gain access to an area, then [the state] will retain that option. Phrases such as, "where necessary" are meant to be limiting language and are used under current law; for example, such language has been used in the past to preclude the state from just taking land when doing so is not necessary. With regard to securing public access to fishing streams, he acknowledged that that is different than securing public access to hunting areas, because it involves the taking of specific land; for securing public access to hunting areas and for creating hiking trails, he suggested that Conceptual Amendment 2 is saying that the state shouldn't even think about using eminent domain unless there are no other reasonable options. CHAIR McGUIRE said she would be maintaining her objection to Conceptual Amendment 2. She noted that the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) is in the process of working on an amendment to deal with the issue of using eminent domain to obtain public access to fishing streams in those very narrow circumstances where no other access is available. On the issue of Conceptual Amendment 2 as whole, she characterized it as a public policy issue, and said her perspective is that in a state wherein there is so little private property, the alternatives of using state land, federal land, and municipal land ought to be sufficient for Alaskans to enjoy their recreational activities. CHAIR McGUIRE opined that eminent domain should only be used in true cases of legitimate emergency - not for economic development and not for recreational purposes. She stated that she would continue to support recreational trails and the use of public funds and public lands for them. She noted that the bill proposes to preclude the taking of a person's private residence but no such exemption is proposed for private cabins or other private recreational property. She added that she is not willing to make an exception for the latter types of property. CHAIR McGUIRE remarked that she is troubled a bit by the wording in Conceptual Amendment 2 that says land may be acquired via eminent domain in order to "make construction or expansion of the trail economically feasible". For example, there may be another alternative for a trail on public land, but if that alternative is costly to pursue, then Conceptual Amendment 2 might be used to take a person's residence [or the land within 1,000 linear feet of that residence]. A homeowner who is facing having his/her land seized by eminent domain could question whether his/her particular land is really necessary for a particular trail or whether the state simply views his/her land as easier and less costly to acquire than going through the process of proving that building a trail through a wildlife refuge, for example, is acceptable. CHAIR McGUIRE opined that the language in Conceptual Amendment 2 moves away from her goal in offering HB 318, that being to say that private property and the place where one has a residence ought to be protected at the highest level. The law shouldn't provide for the transfer of private property for recreational use simply because doing so is more economically feasible than having to go through an exhaustive environmental impact study, for example. 2:01:42 PM CHAIR McGUIRE said she can see the benefits of things like the coastal trail up in her district, but it brings up a good example of a situation in which people have built their homes on land that others would like to use for a trail even though there are alternatives; the question then becomes how does one approach the issue of balancing a community's need for recreation and an individual's desire to keep his/her private residence. She opined that the bill currently strikes a healthy balance on that issue. Even though there are those who don't want to see the prohibition against eminent domain limited to private residences, she remarked, she is not willing to expand it. She said she would be disappointed if [Conceptual Amendment 2] passes because it goes to the heart of the bill's intention. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested replacing the words, "economically feasible", with the word, "possible", and removing the words, "or expansion". REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that in using the words, "economically feasible", he'd meant to even further limit the government's ability to take someone's private residence, and that in using the words, "or expansion" he'd meant to say that eminent domain could be used to expand a recreational trail. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested at least removing the word, "economic". REPRESENTATIVE GARA said "Sure." CHAIR McGUIRE said she doesn't necessarily know what is meant by the phrase, "no reasonable alternative", particularly when viewed in light of wildlife refuges and all the things that must be done in order to demonstrate that acquiring such land is appropriate. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that alternative language could be arrived at. CHAIR McGUIRE said that if Conceptual Amendment 2 does not pass, she is willing to address this issue further as the bill moves through the process. She asked members to keep in mind that there is so much public land in Alaska that a community ought to be able to easily acquire the land it needs for recreational purposes without resorting to using eminent domain to take an individual's private land. She indicated that at this point she is not comfortable with merely amending Conceptual Amendment 2 in an attempt to address her concern. 2:08:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to amend Conceptual Amendment 2 by replacing, "economically feasible" with, "possible". There being no objection, the amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON opined that taking someone's home simply for recreational purposes would be the wrong thing to do, particularly when people can simply drive a little distance [and make use of public lands]. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON concurred with the remarks made by Chair McGuire and Representative Wilson. He characterized Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, as too broad. REPRESENTATIVE GARA remarked that although there is a lot of public land in Alaska, most of it is not accessible and most people will never see it. And so the problem that he is trying to address is that in the future the amount of accessible public land will diminish. He offered examples of land that in the future will not be accessible and will therefore be lost to the public for the purpose of recreational fishing. REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his belief that Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, addresses the issue of acquiring land for recreational fishing and hunting purposes; the state has this authority currently and it is almost never used, but he doesn't want to give away this tool. He remarked that many fishing streams in the Lower 48 have been lost to the public because steps weren't taken to ensure public access to them. He suggested that had legislation like HB 318 been adopted 30 years ago, the aforementioned coastal trail could not exist because the threat of eminent domain could not have been used to convince some people to sell their property for fair market value. 2:14:53 PM CHAIR McGUIRE suggested that if there is a fear that land currently held by a Native corporation, for example, will someday be turned into a housing development and that that might in turn preclude the public from having access to fishing streams, then the solution is to start planning and looking at the needs of particular communities [at the local level] now. She said she is amenable to an amendment that will address the issue of gaining public access to fishing streams, and indicated that she is more swayed by the argument that the state has an obligation to maintain control over its natural resources than by the argument that the public has the right to recreation or economic development; as long as the focus of such an amendment remains narrow and only applies in instances where there is literally no other way to access the state's resources - even if for hunting, fishing, and hiking purposes - she would support it. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that in large part he represents a "poor part of town," and opined that those Alaskans have as much right under the Alaska State Constitution to access things like the coastal trial; it is essential that people have access to things that maintain their quality of life, and that people accommodate each other in a reasonable manner, notwithstanding the rights of landowners to their land. As the country becomes more civilized, there is a duty to try to work together. He said he supports private property, but he also supports the right of people to live their lives and have an opportunity to enjoy something like the coastal trail. CHAIR McGUIRE remarked that [the issues raised by this bill] cut to the core of philosophies. 2:21:29 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg and Gara voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended. Representatives McGuire, Wilson, Anderson, and Kott voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, failed by a vote of 2-4. 2:21:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3, which, with handwritten corrections, read [original punctuation provided]: Page 4, line 19 after "individual landowner's personal residence" Insert: "however, the power of eminent domain may be exercised for trails used for foot or wheeled travel where necessary for access to an area for hunting purposes; or where necessary for access to or along segments of a waterway or lake used for fishing, boating or other recreational uses." CHAIR McGUIRE objected for the purpose of discussion. She said that although she doesn't object to the fundamental goal behind Conceptual Amendment 3, her concern is that it has not yet been thoroughly vetted. REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that Conceptual Amendment 3 would keep the power of eminent domain for gaining access to hunting and fishing areas, and acknowledged that the next committee of referral might entertain changes to this proposed language. He noted that merely having access to a fishing stream is not good enough - one must also have the right to walk along the fishing stream. CHAIR McGUIRE said she would maintain her objection but would commit to working with Representative Gara on the issue of having access to fishing streams. She noted that Conceptual Amendment 3 also contains the language, "or other recreational uses", and said this language is a little broader than what she'd be willing to support. REPRESENTATIVE GARA remarked, "Typo." CHAIR McGUIRE said she would work to try to craft an alternative. REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to amend Conceptual Amendment 3 such that the last line ends with, "fishing or boating." and no longer includes the words, "or other recreational uses". He opined that they should retain the right to acquire land for the purpose public access to fishing streams and boating and hunting areas. [No objection was stated and Conceptual Amendment 3 was treated as amended.] 2:26:11 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg and Gara voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 3, as amended. Representatives McGuire, Wilson, Anderson, and Kott voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 3, as amended, failed by a vote of 2-4. 2:26:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 4, labeled 24-LS1083\L.5, Bullock, 2/1/06, which read: Page 6, lines 7 - 15: Delete all material. Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 6, lines 17 - 21: Delete all material and insert: "(c) A borough or a home rule or first class city may exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire property owned by a private person for the purpose of transferring title to the property to another private person for economic development purposes or to acquire a landowner's primary personal residence for the purpose of developing a recreational facility or project if the municipality (1) has not delegated the power of eminent domain; (2) provides for the taking by ordinance; (3) makes every good faith effort to involve each potentially affected landowner in the planning of the project for which the exercise of the power is being considered, including providing written notice by mail to each landowner at the address of record at least 14 days before a planning meeting or public hearing; (4) appraises the property the municipality seeks to acquire before beginning negotiations to purchase the property, permits the owner of the property to be present during the appraisal, and makes every reasonable effort to negotiate the purchase of the property through open negotiations with the owner of the property; and (5) offers the property owner the opportunity to testify at a public hearing before the assembly or council that is considering the enactment of an ordinance to acquire the property through the exercise of the power of eminent domain." Page 6, line 24, following "AS 09.55.240": Insert "; (3) "personal residence" has the meaning given in AS 09.55.240; (4) "recreational facility or project" has the meaning given in AS 09.55.240" 2:27:54 PM KEVIN C. RITCHIE, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League (AML), explained that the sole purpose of Amendment 4 is to preserve existing local control, and offered his understanding that Article X of the Alaska State Constitution, in using the term "maximum local self-government", is providing a constitutional mandate allowing citizens and communities to make their own choices as much as possible. The will and ability of communities to responsibly deal with eminent domain have already been proven; a number of communities have already had extensive discussions on the issue of eminent domain and have passed local laws similar to what is being proposed [via HB 318]. "Allowing communities the ability to make choices that impact their own citizens is an important constitutional principle," he opined. MR. RITCHIE posited that in addition to allowing communities to continue to make their own laws regarding eminent domain, Amendment 4 sets out reasonable sideboards to ensure that citizens and property owners are always heard. Therefore, he ventured, members could vote in favor of Amendment 4 without impacting their feelings about eminent domain. He offered his understanding that [Amendment 1c offers the state] a way of dealing with unforeseen situations, and that Amendment 4 would provide a similar mechanism for local communities. He concluded by saying that the AML supports [the committee's] efforts to deal with "this issue" on behalf of state government and its agencies, and asks [the committee] to continue to give communities - which have elected bodies accountable to the public - the ability to deal with local eminent domain issues within their jurisdictions. 2:31:34 PM LUKE HOPKINS, Member, Assembly, Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB), with regard to Amendment 4, asked that the committee consider allowing local governments the ability to make the decisions locally regarding eminent domain. He noted that Anchorage recently amended its ordinance on limiting the use of eminent domain, and that the FNSB passed an ordinance limiting the taking of one's property for private economic development. He asked the committee to consider amending HB 318 to ensure that local municipalities have the ability to act on the issue of eminent domain on a case-by-case basis. 2:33:44 PM RANDY FRANK, Member, Assembly, Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB), relayed that he, too, is concerned about local control, adding, "I think that the elected bodies in each municipality or city should have the right to be involved in this process and not be hamstrung by a state law, which would supersede [local law]. Although eminent domain is necessary, it can and has been used to the detriment of landowners, he remarked, and offered examples of the latter. He surmised that both the recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Kelo v. City of New London, and the extension of the aforementioned coastal trail in Anchorage have engendered in the public a lot of distrust of the process of using eminent domain to seize land. Local control is a most important issue, and it is easy for the term, "for the good of the public" to be abused; there are always alternatives [to seizing private property], he opined, and they should be explored. 2:36:03 PM ED EARNHART said he would be testifying in support of [Amendment 4]. Local governments have already been acting on their own in the direction of what HB 318 proposes to restrict, but they also need the latitude in the future to handle issues regarding quality of life as suggested by Representative Gruenberg, Mr. Earnhart remarked, and relayed that he'd initially been opposed to HB 318, but has since changed his mind after becoming more aware of some of the issues involved. He indicated that it is easy to find examples of abuses of eminent domain, but in taking care of the needs of a community as a whole there is no guarantee that individuals won't get hurt in the process. He offered his hope that [Amendment 4] will be adopted and that [the committee] will more fully consider the issues involved; it is much easier to access a local government with regard to the issue of eminent domain. He concluded by making brief comments regarding the Kelo decision. CHAIR McGUIRE acknowledged Mr. Earnhart's points. 2:41:23 PM JEAN WOODS relayed that she and many of her friends are opposed to the concept of taking away private property for the purpose of economic development, adding, though, that she agrees with Representative Gara on the issue of access for fishing, boating, and hunting. She went on to say: I cannot see a local municipality exercising the right of eminent domain for economic development unless its for the stated reasons that are covered by federal and state law, and for those of you that are not aware of it, the House of Representatives [in Congress] voted 378 to 38 opposing the Supreme Court ruling [in Kelo], and they're talking about withholding funding to states that go along with ... [it]. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his belief that all the members present agree with Ms. Woods's point regarding taking land from private individuals for economic development purposes. CHAIR McGUIRE opined that Amendment 4 essentially guts HB 318 because it would allow local municipalities to ignore the proposed state law. MS. WOODS said she completely supports the bill. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON agreed with Chair McGuire regarding the effect of Amendment 4 on HB 318. He indicated that he's received correspondence from the president of the Russian Jack Community Counsel in opposition to Amendment 4. 2:45:38 PM NOEL WOODS thanked the sponsor for the bill as currently written and said he opposes Amendment 4 and is incensed by the concept of taking private residences; if the committee is going to consider allowing such, there should be a substantial penalty added to any approved price for the property involved. 2:46:43 PM LISA VON BARGEN, Director, Community and Economic Development Department, City of Valdez, relayed that the City of Valdez has no formal opinion regarding HB 318, but urged the committee to consider providing control at the local level, adding her belief that there is no better way of knowing whether the right decision is being made about eminent domain than to have to face a group of one's peers that one sees every day while going about one's daily business. 2:47:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Mr. Ritchie whether anything in HB 318 would require municipalities to change their current ordinances. MR. RITCHIE said that as currently written, HB 318 would override current local ordinances, though he noted it is similar to the current Anchorage ordinance. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether HB 318 would preclude a local government from utilizing its ordinances regarding eminent domain, and whether local ordinances are different than what is currently provided for in the bill. MR. RITCHIE said he doesn't have copies of all the local ordinances regarding eminent domain but would get them for the committee, and reiterated that HB 318 would supersede existing local ordinances. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON relayed that she would not want anybody taking her home away from her for any reason. REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether there is an alternative version of Amendment 4 that would still protect a local government's control over the issue of eminent domain; perhaps something specifically addressing a local government's ability to acquire land for recreational purposes. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said no, though he would be willing to entertain an amendment to Amendment 4 to that effect as it may currently be too broad. His intention, he relayed, was to simply say that a municipality as set forth in Amendment 4 could do the same thing that the legislature could now do as a result of the adoption of Amendment 1c, and he did not mean to broaden the power of local governments. 2:52:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to conceptually amend Amendment 4, to delete from Amendment 4's proposed subsection (c) the words, "for economic development purposes or to acquire a landowner's primary personal residence for the purpose of developing a recreational facility or project"; and inserting, "for the purposes and as set out in the remainder of this act"; and allow the drafter to "make this absolutely congruent." REPRESENTATIVE GARA suggested instead that they simply change page 4, line 15, [of Version L] to say in part, "The power of eminent domain may not be exercised by the state for the purpose ...". He indicated that he would be amenable to language that gives local governments control over the issue of recreational access. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG instead suggested altering Amendment 4 by deleting the text, inserting language from Amendment 1c, and altering that language so that it says in part, "the legislature or a municipality within its jurisdiction ...". REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a comment, withdrew Amendment 4. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 5, which would amend Amendment 1c by adding "or a municipality within its jurisdiction and as permitted by law" after the phrase, "the legislature". He clarified that with the adoption of Conceptual Amendment 5, which is altering Amendment 1c, [proposed subsection (d)(7) on page 4 of Version L] would then read, "(7) the legislature or a municipality within its jurisdiction and as permitted by law has approved by the law the transfer of private property." He then added, "It would have to be by law or ... municipal ordinance." REPRESENTATIVE WILSON sought clarification. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that if Conceptual Amendment 5 is adopted, municipalities will have the same authority as is being granted to the legislature. CHAIR McGUIRE concurred, and characterized Conceptual Amendment 5 as gutting the bill and as being more dangerous than Amendment 4 because if the votes are there at a local level, a local government can simply ignore state law. In response to comments, she pointed out that the adoption of [Amendment 1c] grants to the legislature the authority to [approve the transfer of private property between private entities for economic development purposes]. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred, and said he is now troubled by Conceptual Amendment 5. CHAIR McGUIRE suggested to members that they allow this issue to be addressed in the next committee of referral. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Conceptual Amendment 5. 3:04:16 PM CHAIR McGUIRE made a motion to adopt Amendment 6, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 3, line 19: At the end of (7) Insert: ,fiber optic lines; REPRESENTATIVE GARA objected for the purpose of discussion. He asked whether "cable" would be included. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT offered his belief that fiber optic [lines] would be construed as cable [lines]. MR. JOHNSON offered his understanding that most cable in the future will be fiber optic. CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether the language ought to be changed to say, "cable lines". MR. JOHNSON remarked that not all fiber optic lines are cable lines and so a reference to both would be needed. REPRESENTATIVE GARA noted that Amendment 6 proposes to change existing statutory language and so he assumes that cable is covered somewhere, though he is not sure where. CHAIR McGUIRE suggested adopting Amendment 6 as is, and then she would research whether cable is already covered and whether "telegraph lines" should still be included in statute. REPRESENTATIVE GARA suggested that perhaps the language should be changed to say, "fiber optic and other communications lines". MR. JOHNSON offered his understanding that "that" would be covered as a "utility". REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON concurred. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he doesn't know that cable is a utility. CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any objections to Amendment 6. There being none, Amendment 6 was adopted. In response to a question, she confirmed that [if necessary] the remainder of bill would be renumbered accordingly. 3:08:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [made a motion to adopt] Amendment 7, which, with a handwritten insertion of text, read [original punctuation provided, though with a change in formatting]: Page 4, line 18: Delete 1000 linear feet and insert: 250 linear feet CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any objections to Amendment 7. There being none, Amendment 7 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 8, to insert after the word, "exercised" on page 4, line 15, the words, "by the state". REPRESENTATIVE WILSON sought clarification. REPRESENTATIVE GARA opined that adoption of Amendment 8 would provide local governments with the authority to use eminent domain in order to gain recreational access for the public. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected. REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his understanding that local governments would be in favor of such a change. In response to comments, he clarified that Amendment 8 would provide a municipality with the authority to gain recreational access for a trail that is owned by the municipality. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON asked whether Amendment 8 would apply in situations similar to the one involving the aforementioned coastal trail. REPRESENTATIVE GARA indicated it would. 3:11:39 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg and Gara voted in favor of Amendment 8. Representatives McGuire, Wilson, Anderson, and Kott voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 8 failed by a vote of 2-4. 3:12:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report the proposed CS for HB 318, Version 24-LS1083\L, Bullock, 1/24/06, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 318(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|