Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/08/1998 01:40 PM Senate JUD
Audio | Topic |
---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 190 - ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE BEFORE EMINENT DOMAIN SENATOR JERRY MACKIE, prime sponsor of SB 190, said this bill attempts to bring fairness as well as expediency to the acquisition of land by the state and municipal government. SENATOR MACKIE explained that SB 190 requires the government to make a good faith effort to purchase land from a land owner prior to invoking the law of eminent domain. SENATOR MACKIE said he is not trying to remove the authority of the state to take land by eminent domain, only adding a provision to ensure there is a good faith negotiation on the part of the state or municipal government before they claim land under eminent domain. SENATOR MACKIE indicated that in some cases a landowner can be at the mercy of the government, as their only recourse to keep their land once eminent domain has been invoked is a costly and time-consuming court challenge, which generally only serves to set the price to be paid for the land anyway. SENATOR MACKIE stated that 23 other states have similar requirements. SENATOR PARNELL asked what is meant by the language that adds "and the property interest to be taken." SENATOR MACKIE replied that this change was added by the drafter to make the bill more specific. MR. DAVE GRAY, staff to SENATOR MACKIE, interjected that these would be interests in addition to the property itself and might include rights of way or logging rights. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if a view could fall under this, for example if a power line was directly obstructing a view from a view lot - would this diminish the property. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR expressed concern that this "property interest" may expand things beyond the actual property itself. SENATOR MACKIE said he was only concerned about things that would be taken under eminent domain; he said a view would not be taken under eminent domain and CHAIRMAN TAYLOR disagreed, saying it would apply if the value of a view lot was diminished by the loss of the view. MR. GRAY specified that there was never any discussion of this, and the change was intended for other kinds of interests other than pure ownership, like partnership. Number 385 SENATOR MACKIE mentioned he had a proposed committee substitute that would clear up some ambiguities in an earlier draft of the bill and he hoped the committee would consider it. SENATOR ELLIS asked why one version of the bill had included a reasonable and diligent effort and the proposed committee substitute required a good faith effort. SENATOR MACKIE replied that the Community and Regional Affairs Committee thought reasonable and diligent was too stringent a standard to require and could prevent any takings by eminent domain, so they had changed the wording to good faith. SENATOR ELLIS clarified that good faith is a lower standard than reasonable and diligent. SENATOR MACKIE agreed good faith would be less problematic for a government entity. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR interjected that these are terms often used in title actions and a diligent inquiry can be quite a bit of work. SENATOR MACKIE said all he wanted to see was that agencies extend the common courtesy of a good faith effort before taking a piece of property under eminent domain. SENATOR MACKIE said he did not mean to imply this was not being done now, he just wanted to ensure it would always be done. Number 440 SENATOR PARNELL asked if under the current process, the state used eminent domain to obtain a right of way. SENATOR MACKIE said they did. SENATOR PARNELL asked if this bill expands or just clarifies how things are done now. SENATOR MACKIE replied that depends on who you ask. He said there are good and bad cases of takings by government entities. SENATOR PARNELL clarified that this bill would only add the requirement of a good faith negotiation and consideration of other property interests and SENATOR MACKIE said he was not sure but further testimony might enlighten them. MR. BILL CUMMINGS, representing the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF) for the Department of Law, urged everyone to remember that 95 to 98 per cent of the land obtained by DOT/PF was through negotiation, while only 2 to 5 per cent was through the condemnation process and the invocation of eminent domain. MR. CUMMINGS said he is the last person to see a project before it goes out to bid and briefly explained the process by which a piece of property is appraised; an offer is made and the negotiation takes place. He said eminent domain is used as a last resort. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted they were working off the Community and Regional Affairs Committee as the work draft brought by the sponsor had not yet been adopted. MR. CUMMINGS said now, a property owner who is not satisfied or unable to reach an agreement with the state can, when the state has taken his or her land under eminent domain, file a petition with the court challenging the project in terms of if it really achieved the goal of the maximum public good for the minimum private injury. MR. CUMMINGS said this bill adds two new provisions; a property owner can now file an additional court challenge to the appropriateness of the particular property interest that the state takes for any particular project. MR. CUMMINGS explained the state can take a number of different property interests in a piece of property depending on the particular needs of a given project. For example, some projects require a fee simple interest which is the ultimate property right and acquires the entire property down to the core of the earth. Other projects may require only an easement, and the type of property interest to be taken is generally left to the discretion of the condemning authority. MR. CUMMINGS said generally they try to take the minimum property right they need for any project. MR. CUMMINGS said his question about this bill is: what's broken? He said good faith negotiations are happening now and only exceptional cases wind up in court. This bill will introduce a complicated process that will add to the cost of projects. MR. CUMMINGS concluded by saying that eminent domain is very generous in its compensation to property owners and owners who contest eminent domain and win are reimbursed for their court costs, awarded any damages due to their land and they get their land back. MR. CUMMINGS said his concern is that there is nothing wrong with this process to require the changes proposed in this bill. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he did not see how this could be a major hurdle if it was already being done in 95 per cent of cases. MR. CUMMINGS replied that this legislation allows a property owner to contest the propriety of the taking as well as whether the negotiations were conducted in good faith. MR. CUMMINGS explained this may significantly delay a project while waiting for a court decision. He said this provision would allow for significant, inappropriate delays. SENATOR MACKIE interjected that this is exactly what the bill is intended to do - to allow property owners recourse when the entity taking their land cannot show that just compensation was awarded for it after good faith negotiations. SENATOR MACKIE said it is not his intent to stop development, but only to codify the requirement for a good faith negotiation to prohibit an any possible abuse of the process. Number 569 SENATOR PARNELL asked again about the "property or interest" language and asked if this will expand the type of property interests the state will be paying for or if it only puts in statute what is already happening. MR. CUMMINGS replied it increases an owner's ability to contest a taking, they may contest the nature of the interest taken as well as the taking itself. For example, a property owner may contest the necessity of a fee simple taking, saying an easement could have been used instead. SENATOR PARNELL said this gets at the issue of the maximum public good for the minimum private harm, but MR. CUMMINGS disagreed, saying that issue has more to do with the nature and location of a project than the type of land interest taken. Tape 98-31, Side B Number 001 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he's afraid the bill expands beyond negotiating in good faith. He asked about page two of the latest draft ("K"). MR. CUMMINGS said he thinks that part says if a property is to be condemned the condemning authority must be able to show they participated in a good faith negotiation prior to the condemnation, and that the person with whom they negotiated was not lacking intellectual capacity. Number 552 SENATOR MACKIE agreed with the question regarding what might be considered an additional interest, but he asked for them to consider possible timber interests and like things. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked MR. CUMMINGS if since most cases are resolved through negotiation, the others are not simply because there was no attempt to negotiate. MR. CUMMINGS replied the reasons cases are not settled include bad legal advice, greed and philosophical differences. He cited a case in Ketchikan in which the property owner wanted an amount about twenty times higher than what the state was willing to pay. SENATOR MACKIE asked if the state determined the price through an appraisal process and MR. CUMMINGS indicated that was correct. SENATOR PARNELL asked if a jury would then determine what the value is using a body of case law that assign value to different things. MR. CUMMINGS said this was also correct, and a master would be appointed to make the final declaration of value under instructions given by the Superior Court. If the owner is dissatisfied with the decision of the master, they can appeal and exercise their right to a jury trial. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the appraisal happened before this and MR. CUMMINGS said it did. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR clarified that the master comes in after the owner has said no and a condemnation and a declaration of taking has been filed. MR. CUMMINGS said this is correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR mentioned that they then deposit the amount of the appraisal in an account on behalf of the property owner who has immediate access to the money should he or she choose; the owner can even take this money, continue the protest and try to get more money on top of this. MR. CUMMINGS agreed this was all correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR explained the master can then rehash the whole situation and change the award made by the condemning entity. If the master does increase the award, the property owner can even appeal this, all the while having access to the extra money deposited for the increased award. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said the government entity has already had the land conveyed at this point and may continue with the project even as the value continues to be contested. MR. CUMMINGS replied this was also correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the property owner still at this point has the right to challenge the public interest of the project and MR. CUMMINGS said no, that must be done within 20 days of the filing for the taking. He added there are provisions for expedited discovery in these cases. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR concluded that the project could still be delayed by a court proceeding over the public interest issue. MR. CUMMINGS replied that was correct. Number 450 MR. RICHARD HARRIS, representing Sealaska Corporation, supported the bill. MR. HARRIS stated that Sealaska Corporation, an Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) corporation, holds about 330,000 of fee estate land and an equal amount of subsurface land in Southeast Alaska. Sealaska also owns other properties and MR. HARRIS said Sealaska views and values all these properties differently. ANCSA lands are a treasure that took hundreds of years to secure and Sealaska finds condemnation of these properties problematic, and thinks SB 190 is an important vehicle to provide additional protection for landowners and ensure a diligent attempt is made to buy private land before any condemnation proceeding. MR. HARRIS said Sealaska would merely like to level the playing field by requiring two simple things: a good faith effort at negotiation and the requirement of demonstrating a project is necessary. MR. HARRIS indicated that 20 other states do this now and it is recommended procedure under the Universal Eminent Domain Act. Number 418 MR. HARRIS remarked that it is not always necessary to take a fee simple interest in a piece of property. He gave an example in which he did not think the proper property interest had been taken; it involved an air easement needed for an airport. The government bought only the air rights to the land adjacent to the airport, but placed restrictions on how high the trees on the land could grow. Because this was timber land, the height restriction devalued it considerably, though Sealaska was not compensated for this. MR. HARRIS said a good faith effort is a reasonable requirement, and might help avoid some problems in the future. MR. HARRIS said the bill does not expand the jurisdiction of government entities, and added that view rights can be challenged now as a property interest. MR. HARRIS said the bill is a reasonable one and sufficiently protects the state. The burden of proof is on a property owner to show grounds for a complaint and the state is only required to show that a proper assessment has been made, that they are taking the least interest needed for the project and that they have negotiated the deal in good faith. MR. HARRIS gave an example in which the state took fee estate for a piece of jointly owned property and left the two property owners to fight amongst themselves for the lump sum of money. He does not see this as a proper good faith negotiation. MR. HARRIS stated that though Sealaska is not interested in selling land, they are willing to trade for other land. Unfortunately, the agency they deal with most (DOT) has no lands of its own and is unlikely to get land from its "sister agencies." MR. HARRIS said he is not happy with this and has tried to address this problem to no avail. MR. HARRIS restated his point that this is a reasonable bill that does not require much more than what is happening now. He stated it gives a level of protection to landowners and levels the playing field for negotiations between the two parties. SENATOR PARNELL asked, in the airport example, what prevented Sealaska from showing a loss of interest in the land. MR. HARRIS replied that nothing prevented that, he would just prefer for Sealaska to ask the state to buy the fee estate in a case like this. He said it is important to have a fair consideration of the land owner's interest and come to an agreement about the appropriate interest to be acquired. SENATOR PARNELL asked if the language "or interest in the property" would extend this beyond the direct property owner and MR. HARRIS replied he did not think so. Number 285 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if any other states are held up in their condemnation proceedings by this type of provision, as they only employ the good faith negotiation portion of this legislation. MR. HARRIS said he was only saying that the interest to be taken should be negotiated with a property owner as well, in order to determine the minimum necessary property owner. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if there are any other states that do this, he said he could imagine a dispute over the property interest might hold projects up or overly limit them. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he could see a myriad of opinions as to the correct property interest to be taken for a given project, and he remarked that the efficiency of the process must be maintained. MR. HARRIS replied that there is insurance built into the bill by the fact that the burden of proof is on the party opposing the taking. He said a simple challenge will not stop a project from progressing, especially if the state realizes it is an invalid claim. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if, in the airport example, they could file a suit of inverse condemnation for wrongful taking. MR. HARRIS said they could and CHAIRMAN TAYLOR added they could prove that through the same mechanism in the bill also if it were adopted. MR. HARRIS said they were trying to avoid getting to that point and merely avoiding the "iron glove" of condemnation by establishing a system in which the interest and its worth are negotiated in good faith. He again said this would simply codify, for the most part, what is already being done. Number 195 MR. BOB NAVRO testified via teleconference and said the bill is "wonderful." He is in the middle of a condemnation proceeding and takes exception to the comment that sometimes people contest these proceedings due to greed. He argued that our Constitution guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He equates happiness with property and says an assessment might not equal the value of a piece of property in a property owner's mind's eye. He disagreed with the state's appraisal of his land and supported the bill. SENATOR PARNELL moved to adopt work draft "K" as the committee's working document. Without objection, it was so ordered. MR. BILL CUMMINGS testified again, saying he is sympathetic to Sealaska's concerns, but feels they have been dealt with in good faith. Number 058 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented that it seems the state is limited by the value determined by the appraiser. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked how and when the state can deviate from this appraisal. MR. CUMMINGS replied there must be a good reason for any deviation and an owner needs to show some level of proof for their claim that the land is worth more than the assessment, but the state wants to settle these disputes and they benefit from being able to do so. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if there was an offset for any increase to the value of the property made by the condemning authority to the condemned land. MR. CUMMINGS replied this was correct.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|