03/14/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY

HB 175 - EMINENT DOMAIN; RECREATIONAL STRUCTURES                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:38:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the  final order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL  NO. 175, "An Act  relating to the prohibition  of the                                                               
exercise of  the power of  eminent domain against  a recreational                                                               
structure for the purposes of  developing a recreational facility                                                               
or project."                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:39:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG JOHNSON,  Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,                                                               
relayed  that  legislation  last  year  set  limitations  on  the                                                               
exercise  of  eminent  domain  and  elevated  someone's  personal                                                               
residence such  that eminent  domain could  not be  exercised for                                                               
the  purpose of  developing  a recreational  facility or  project                                                               
unless  the   homeowner  consented  to  the   taking  of  his/her                                                               
residence.   House  Bill 175  would extend  that limitation  to a                                                               
person's   recreational  structure,   and  establishes   a  limit                                                               
regarding the amount of land that  would be protected to a radius                                                               
250 linear  feet around the  recreational structure itself  - the                                                               
same amount  of land that  would apply in situations  involving a                                                               
residence; HB 175 would not  interfere with a government entity's                                                               
exercise of  eminent domain  for other  legitimate purposes.   He                                                               
relayed  that  although last  year's  legislation  struck a  fine                                                               
balance between  all interested parties,  recreational structures                                                               
were not included,  and so he is now bringing  this issue forward                                                               
because  he  believes  that  private  ownership  constitutes  the                                                               
greatest use  of Alaska's land.   He mentioned that HB  175 would                                                               
not  apply to  recreational structures  owned by  partnerships or                                                               
businesses.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:43:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DAVE FEEKIN,  Alaska Association  of Realtors (AAR),  spoke about                                                               
last  year's legislation,  relayed  that the  property rights  of                                                               
"second  home"  owners is  of  key  importance, and  opined  that                                                               
HB 175 protects  the values of  those properties.   Realtors have                                                               
heard from many Alaskans about  the importance of recognizing and                                                               
protecting  a key  element for  many families  and their  Alaskan                                                               
lifestyles  -   the  ownership  and  enjoyment   of  recreational                                                               
properties and cabins.   He concluded by asking  the committee to                                                               
support HB 175 and move the bill from committee.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS, after  ascertaining  that no  one  else wished  to                                                               
testify, closed public testimony on HB 175.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, in  response to a question,  said, "It is                                                               
standard  practice to  have access  to your  land ...;  I believe                                                               
that  that  right-of-way does  exist,  and  [the government]  ...                                                               
couldn't condemn the  area to prohibit you from  having access to                                                               
your property ...."                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG    questioned   whether    the   term,                                                               
"recreational structure"  could be construed to  mean a structure                                                               
that was constructed  for just one season, and  asked whether the                                                               
bill  ought to  require some  form of  permanency with  regard to                                                               
recreational structures.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said it is not  the intention of HB 175 to                                                               
allow someone with recreational property  to merely put up a tent                                                               
and move it  from place to place  in order to protect  all of the                                                               
property; HB 175 is intended to  protect the owner of a permanent                                                               
recreational structure.   He  indicated that  he doesn't  have an                                                               
objection to clarifying that point.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  indicated  a willingness  to  offer  a                                                               
conceptual amendment  that would  alter Section  3 such  that the                                                               
concept of  permanence would be incorporated  into the definition                                                               
of "recreational structure".                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:52:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DICK  MYLIUS,  Acting  Director,   Central  Office,  Division  of                                                               
Mining, Land  and Water, Department  of Natural  Resources (DNR),                                                               
in response to a question,  said that the department doesn't have                                                               
any  objection  to  [the  bill  or  the  aforementioned  proposed                                                               
change],  and that  the department  has  never exercised  eminent                                                               
domain in order  to acquire recreational properties  or access to                                                               
recreational opportunities  without the  consent of  the property                                                               
owner.   He opined  that it  would be good  to better  define the                                                               
term,  "recreational  structure",  particularly given  that  both                                                               
tent camps  and million-dollar structures  are all  considered to                                                               
be recreational structures.   In response to  a further question,                                                               
Mr. Mylius  provided comments  regarding a  particular university                                                               
land transfer.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOHNSON, in  response to  a question,  reiterated                                                               
that  the bill  is  intended to  only protect  the  land that  is                                                               
within 250 linear  feet of the structure,  whether that structure                                                               
is someone's  personal residence  or recreational structure.   In                                                               
response to  a comment and  question, he indicated that  he would                                                               
be amenable  to an amendment that  would clarify that point.   In                                                               
response  to a  further  question,  he said  he  intends for  the                                                               
protections afforded  by the  bill to apply  only to  a landowner                                                               
who holds legal title to the recreational structure.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  DAHLSTROM surmised  that several  members believe                                                               
that the  issue of how much  land is going to  be protected still                                                               
needs to be clarified in the bill.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that  the issues raised by the                                                               
committee be addressed via a committee substitute.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
[HB 175 was held over.]