Legislature(2005 - 2006)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/02/2006 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB318 | |
| HB380 | |
| HB105 | |
| HB16 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 318 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 380 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 218 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 318(JUD)
"An Act limiting the exercise of eminent domain."
9:12:47 AM
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Senator Bunde moved to adopt committee substitute Version 24-
LS1083\R as the working document.
Co-Chair Green objected for explanation.
Co-Chair Green explained that, at the request of the bill's
sponsor, Representative Lesil McGuire, Version "R" would delete
language adopted by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The language
eliminated is located in Sec. 5, page 6 beginning on line 25 and
continuing through page 7, line 11 of SCS CS HB 318(JUD),
Version 24-LS1083\P, as follows.
…However, a municipality may exercise the power of eminent
domain to acquire private property from a private person
for the purpose of transferring title to the property to
another private person for economic development if
(1) the municipality does not delegate the power of
eminent domain to another person;
(2) before issuing the notice in (3) of this
subsection, the municipality makes a good faith effort to
negotiate the purchase of the property;
(3) written notice is provided at least 90 days before
the public hearing to each owner of land that may be
affected by the exercise of eminent domain;
(4) the municipality holds a public hearing on the
exercise of eminent domain after adequate public notice;
(5) the governing body of the municipality approves
the exercise of eminent domain by a two-thirds majority
vote; and
(6) in the case of a second class city, the governing
body of the city adopts an ordinance by a two-thirds
majority vote, the ordinance is submitted to the voters for
approval at the next general election or at a special
election called for that purpose, and the exercise of
eminent domain is approved by a majority of the votes on
the question.
Co-Chair Green supported the elimination of this language, as
its inclusion would negate the purpose of the bill. The adoption
of Version "R" would return the bill to its original form.
9:14:03 AM
CRAIG JOHNSON, Staff to Representative Lesil McGuire, the bill's
sponsor, informed the Committee that this bill was developed in
response to a recent United States (U.S.) Supreme Court ruling,
Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, eminent domain case in
which private property was condemned and "transferred to another
private entity for private economic development". The public
outcry to that Court's ruling spurred eminent domain legislation
in 42 states. Representative McGuire researched Alaska Law and
found that existing law "would allow this type of condemnation".
Therefore this bill, which has been scrutinized by a variety of
entities including the Department of Law, environmental groups,
the Alaska Railroad Corporation, utility and oil companies, and
realtors, was developed to address the issue.
Mr. Johnson stated that one of the policies paramount in the
development of the bill was "the appropriateness of transferring
private property to another private individual", specifically
the transfer of people's homes. Numerous homes were taken and
transferred to a private developer in the Connecticut case.
Thus, this bill contained language that would protect a person's
primary residence. He clarified however, that the bill would not
absolutely prohibit eminent domain of a person's home, as there
are legitimate instances for its use. "The determination was
that the ability of one person to recreate doesn't take priority
over another person's dwelling space." This determination was
further refined to protect approximately a four-acre plot around
someone's home from eminent domain.
Mr. Johnson stressed that while "this is a bill that no one
loves", 90 percent of it is acceptable. It is a compromise
between the stances of such entities as the American Association
of Realtors who believe that "no private property should ever be
taken" as opposed to the position of environmental groups that
support widespread use of eminent domain. This bill would
reserve the use of eminent domain "in traditional uses but
strictly deals with those two narrow policy issues of private to
private and protecting someone's home".
9:17:44 AM
Mr. Johnson professed this legislation, which would not fiscally
impact the State, was thoroughly reviewed, both in its
development and during its 22 Legislative hearings. He urged the
Committee to support the bill.
Co-Chair Green asked for confirmation that the sponsor supported
the Version "R" committee substitute.
Mr. Johnson affirmed.
Mr. Johnson noted that federal legislation is currently being
considered that would restrict funding to states that "allow
private to private transfers of any political subdivisions". In
conclusion, this bill would reserve eminent domain policy
decision authority to the Legislature rather than to local
governing bodies.
9:18:49 AM
LUKE HOPKINS, Assembly Member, Fairbanks North Star Borough,
testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, in opposition to
Version "R". The Borough considers eminent domain a local
control issue and has established a process to best fit the
needs of the community. The Municipality of Anchorage has also
adopted an eminent domain policy.
9:19:57 AM
Mr. Hopkins addressed Mr. Johnson's comments that Version "R"
"would strike the best balance" between the various interests.
One consideration omitted however, was a local municipality's
right to take action on an issue involving eminent domain
specifically relating to economic development concerns. He urged
the Committee to consider the Senate Judiciary committee
substitute, Version "P", as it is responsive to the needs of
local governments.
9:21:23 AM
Senator Stedman asked Mr. Hopkins whether this bill might
"hinder" a municipality's ability to extend sewer and water
lines or further utility infrastructure. Oftentimes, easements
are necessary to support these efforts.
9:22:14 AM
Mr. Hopkins understood that the bill would not restrict utility
and infrastructure easements.
Co-Chair Green concurred.
9:23:11 AM
Senator Stedman stated that, oftentimes, in the effort to expand
a utility trunk line, a utility must negotiate easements across
private property. The question is whether this legislation might
negatively impact municipality or utility's ability in that
regard.
Mr. Johnson assured the Committee these circumstances were
"protected in the bill". Efforts were taken not to change
existing uses of eminent domain. Language in Sec. 2(a)(10) page
3, line 10 specifically allows the continuance of eminent domain
for community sewerage needs. Utility infrastructure, railroad,
hospital, highway needs and other public good needs are also
addressed in Sec. 2.
Senator Stedman acknowledged.
PETER PUTZIER, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Transportation
Section, Department of Law, concurred with Mr. Johnson's
remarks.
9:24:50 AM
RUTH BLACKWELL, Realtor and Representative, Alaska Association
of Realtors, shared that the Association is 99 percent
supportive of Version "R". The Association is against changing
private property to public use, as such action would negate that
land's obligation to contribute to the community tax base. A
person's private property should only transfer to another
private entity through the free market enterprise system. The
government should not become involved in that process.
Currently, only one percent of the land in Alaska is privately
owned; 99 percent of the land is owned by the State, federal, or
lands claim entities. That amount should be sufficient to
provide for a municipality or other public land use need for
economic gain.
9:26:38 AM
PEGGY ANN MACONNOCHIE, Representative, Alaska Association of
Realtors, enthusiastically spoke in support of Version "R", as
it would revert the bill to its original intent. "The Kelo case
was a clear taking of private property … for private purposes."
The Association understood municipalities' desire to have more
local control, but that must not come at the expense of the
owners' property rights. Version "R" would protect those private
property rights.
9:28:13 AM
Ms. McConnochie assured the Committee that "this is a very
important issue to all of us as private property owners", and
the Legislature's decision on this bill would be remembered for
decades. People's homes should be sacred. A person's ability to
own, use, and transfer property is "one of our basic rights".
Legislative protection of that right would be appreciated.
9:28:46 AM
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League (AML)
informed the Committee AML had "no position on eminent domain".
However, he noted that three of AML's largest members have
enacted eminent domain policies similar to those presented in
the bill. The only issue of concern to AML is that of local
control.
Mr. Ritchie agreed with Mr. Hopkins that the policy adopted in
the Senate Judiciary committee substitute, Version "P"
established a process through which "the Legislature could
absolutely guarantee" that "a very substantial and fair" eminent
domain public hearing process would occur at the local level.
Any decision made at the local level would require support from
the majority of the local governing body.
Mr. Ritchie concurred with the Alaska Association of Realtors
position that this was a very important decision. However, he
reemphasized AML's concern about local control. He stressed that
one should be mindful that the Kelo case, which generated this
legislation, occurred in Connecticut. Alaska is not Connecticut.
None of the 10,000 eminent domain situations presented in the
Kelo case pertained to a situation that occurred in Alaska. "We
have been good stewards of eminent domain."
9:30:41 AM
Co-Chair Green removed her objection to adopting Version "R".
There being no further objection, Version "R" was ADOPTED as the
working document.
Senator Dyson was "delighted with both the bill" and Co-Chair
Green's support of it.
Senator Dyson moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, SCS CS HB 318 (FIN) was REPORTED from
Committee with previous zero fiscal note #1 dated January 11,
2006 from the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development; previous zero fiscal note #2 dated January 11, 2006
from the Department of Environmental Conservation; previous
indeterminate fiscal note #3 dated January 10, 2006 from
Department of Law; previous indeterminate fiscal note #4 dated
January 11, 2006 from the Department of Natural Resources; and
previous indeterminate fiscal note #5 dated January 11, 2006
from the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.
9:31:58 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|