Eminent Domain 2006 State Legislation

Last Updated December 5, 2006

Click here to see a map of states' legislation status

Enacted Legislation 2006 (27)

Alabama (H.B. 654)
In 2005, Alabama adopted legislation that prohibited cities and counties from using eminent domain for private development or for enhancing tax revenue. Under the bill, blighted properties were exempt. This year, H.B. 654 was adopted. The law requires that only those properties with significant structural or other problems detrimental to public health and safety can be designated as blighted.

Alaska (H.B. 318)
Prohibits the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes. Also prohibits the use of eminent domain to acquire the primary residence of a land owner for the use of an indoor or outdoor recreational facility or project.

California (S.B. 53, 1206, 1210, 1650, 1809)
Late in the 2006 legislative session the California legislature passed a series of bills addressing various aspects of eminent domain and redevelopment in the state. The package of measures reform many of the procedural aspects of eminent domain use, including clarification of proposed use, additional requirements for findings and hearings, and modification of blight designation. More radical proposals, including a broad constitutional amendment, were rejected.

Colorado (H.B. 1411)
Passed by legislature and signed by Gov. Owens. Requires that the governments prove that the condemnation of a property is necessary for the eradication of blight. Establishes that tax revenue and economic enhancement do not constitute public uses.

Florida (H.B. 1567)
The law requires local governments acquiring property through condemnation to offer to sell the land back to the previous owned if the land is not used for the specified purpose by the government entity itself. If the previous owner chooses to not buy it back, then the government has to wait 10 years before it can sell it through a competitive bidding process. The bill narrowly defines public use and limits the use of eminent domain to eliminate blight. Local officials must also adopt a formal resolution to condemn property. A constitutional amendment was also approved and will appear on the November ballot (HJR 1569).

Georgia (H.B. 1313)
Governor Perdue signed H.B. 1313 into law on April 4. The law provides that the exercise of the power of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes must be by vote of an elected governing body of a county or municipality, not an unelected authority. House Authorities and Downtown Development authorities may not directly condemn property. The legislation also would strictly define the conditions of blight and public use under which property may be taken; require those conditions be applied on a property-by-property basis, rather than across entire neigH.B. orhoods. An attempt to prohibit the use of eminent domain for blight was defeated. A constitutional amendment restricting eminent domain to a narrow public use definition was approved and will be on the November ballot.

Idaho (H.B. 555)
Prohibits the use of eminent domain for a public use that is merely a pretext for transferring the property to another private entity, or for promoting economic development.

Illinois (S.B. 3086)
Prohibits the use of eminent domain for the benefit of a particular private party. Prohibits the use of eminent domain for private development unless the area is blighted and the state or local government has entered into an agreement with a private entity to undertake the redevelopment project.

Indiana (H.B. 1010)
Defines public use for which eminent domain may be exercised to be the possession, occupation and enjoyment of property by the public, public agencies or public utilities, and does not include an increase in the tax base, tax revenue, employment or general economic health. Redefines blighted areas to emphasize properties that are detrimental to the public health and safety. Requires payment of compensation where the property condemned is the person's primary residence at a rate equal to 150 percent of fair market value. Establishes a legislative study committee to study eminent domain and report its findings to the legislature no later than November 1, 2007.

Iowa (H.F. 2351)
Veto by Gov. Vilsack was overridden by the state legislature. A legal challenge to the legislature’s action may be filed claiming that override votes can only be taken during regular sessions. The state attorney general issued an opinion previously stating that special sessions solely for the purpose of overriding a veto are unconstitutional in Iowa. The legislation toughens requirements for a city to take property within urban renewal areas. The areas would have to be heavily blighted for condemnation powers to be used. Contains various procedural changes.

Kansas (H.B. 2543)
Limits the circumstances under which state and local governments could seize property for public use and would require the Legislature to approve each forced sale for a proposed economic development project. Permits governments to force the sale of property that is unsafe for human occupancy. In all forced property sales, whether for public use or for an economic development project, government would be forced to pay double the property’s appraised value. Bill allows them for roads, bridges, parks, public buildings and public water works.

Kentucky (H.B. 508)
Amends the current eminent domain statute to allow the taking of private property for "public use" instead of the current "public purpose." Retains exemption for blight defined, in part, as "something that impairs growth ... or impedes progress and prosperity."

Louisiana (S.B. 1)
The Louisiana legislation provides for both statutory reform and a constitutional amendment vote in September. The amendment would prohibit local or state government entities from taking private property and then transferring it to another individual, a corporation or developer. The bill redefines public purpose and counts utilities, railroads and ports among those entities that can expropriate property for a public purpose. The bill also makes changes to blight designation process.

Maine (L.D. 1870)
Prohibits the use of eminent domain to condemn land used for agriculture, fishing or forestry or land improved with residential, commercial or industrial buildings, for private retail, office, commercial, industrial or residential purposes; primarily to generate additional tax revenue; or to transfer private property to another private entity. Allows for continued use of eminent domain under the state’s current blight standard.

Minnesota (S.F. 2750)
New law, signed by Gov. Pawlenty on May 19, prohibits the use of eminent domain for economic development; requiring eminent domain to be used only for a public use or public purpose; requiring condemning authorities to show clear and convincing evidence for certain takings; providing for condemnation for blight mitigation under certain conditions; specifying public hearing requirements; expanding certain petition notice requirements; requiring compensation for removal of legal nonconforming use; specifying certain minimum compensation requirements; providing for the awarding of attorney fees; providing for a right of first refusal; specifying certain notice requirements; and, providing for certain court orders finding the taking necessary.

Missouri (H.B. 1944)
Prohibits eminent domain "solely" for economic development. Provides a 25 percent bonus for property owner compensation and requires blight evaluation on a parcel-by-parcel basis. The legislation allows blighted neighborhoods to be part of eminent domain takeovers, but farmland would be excluded.

Nebraska (L.B. 924)
Prohibits the use of eminent domain "primarily" for economic development purposes, which is defined to mean use by a commercial entity or to increase tax revenue, the tax base, employment or general economic conditions.

New Hampshire (CACR 30)
Constitutional amendment approved for voter consideration in November 2006. The amendment would prohibit the use of eminent domain if the property is to be transferred to another private entity for private development.

North Carolina (H.B. 1965)
The North Carolina legislature adopted eminent domain legislation in the waning days of its 2006 session. The action came after attempts to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot failed. House Bill 1965, repeals all laws allowing local condemnations for economic development (if a municipality wants to get eminent domain authority for economic development it will have to go through the General Assembly) and while not changing the definition of blight, requires the designation to be parcel by parcel. The legislation passed both chambers unanimously and was signed by the governor.

Pennsylvania (H.B. 2054 / S.B. 881)
Prohibits the use of eminent domain for private enterprise, except where the private enterprise occupies an incidental area within a public project. Does not affect the authority of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, apply to the exercise of eminent domain where the property is blighted or taken pursuant to the urban redevelopment law or taken to provide low-income housing, among other considerations. Defines blight to emphasize characteristics that are detrimental to the public health and safety.

South Carolina (S 1030, H4503)
After considerable debate and wrangling over competing versions of eminent domain reform and whether such reform would include a regulatory takings provision, the South Carolina legislature agreed to send the issue to the voters in the form of a constitutional amendment. The amendment prohibits the use of eminent domain for any use, including economic development, that is not a public use. Authorizes the legislature to enact laws allowing eminent domain to be used to remedy blight with the property put to public or private use provided just compensation is paid

South Dakota (H.B. 1080)
Prohibits the use of eminent domain to transfer private property to another private entity or to be used primarily to generate additional tax revenue.

Tennessee (S.B. 3296 / H.B. 3450)
Tennessee passed legislation that is currently pending Gov. Bredesen’s signature. The measure creates a task force to study eminent domain. The bill requires local governments to certify "public purpose and necessity" when using eminent domain. The timeframe for owners to challenge eminent domain condemnation would be extended to 30 days. The bill also provides several exemptions for using eminent domain.

Utah (S.B. 117)
Requires approval by the governing body of a local government before eminent domain may be exercised for a public use. Requires a written notice to be sent to the affected landowner at least 10 days prior to the public hearing where the proposed taking will be considered. Expands the definition of public use to include bicycle paths and sidewalks adjacent to paved roads, while limiting the use of eminent domain for certain recreational purposes and trails.

Vermont (S.B. 246)
Prohibits the use of eminent domain where the use is primarily for economic development. Exceptions include permissible uses under the state's urban renewal law or for transportation, public utilities, public buildings or water projects.

West Virginia (H.B. 4048)
Prohibits the use of eminent domain primarily for private economic development. Contains a blight exception and redefines blighted areas to emphasize properties that are detrimental to the public health and safety. Requires greater public notice and negotiation in good faith with the property owner.

Wisconsin (A.B. 657)
Prohibits the use of eminent domain to condemn non-blighted properties to be transferred to another private entity. Redefines blight to emphasize properties that are detrimental to the public health and safety. Senate amendments to narrow the scope of the bill were approved. Signed by Gov. Doyle on March 30.

Vetoed (3)

Arizona (H.B. 2675)
Vetoed by Gov. Napolitano who argued that protections already existed in state law and legal precedent. Limits the use of eminent domain to property that is maintained in a slum condition determined on a property-by-property basis as opposed to an area-wide basis and requires a two-thirds vote of the governing body to designate a slum area. Prohibits the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes. Defines public use for which eminent domain may be exercised to be the possession, occupation and enjoyment of property by the public, public agencies or public utilities, and does not include an increase in the tax base, tax revenue, employment or general economic health. Stipulates that the determination that eminent domain is necessary to take property shall be a judicial question and not a legislative determination.

Iowa (H.F. 2351)
Veto by Gov. Vilsack was overridden by the state legislature. See above under "2006 Enacted."

New Mexico (H.B. 746)
Vetoed by Gov. Richardson as overly vague and ripe for potential unintended consequences. The governor has subsequently appointed a state task force to study the issue and deliver legislative recommendations. Prohibits the use of eminent domain to promote private or commercial development and title to the property is transferred to another private entity.

Passed One Chamber (1)

New Jersey (A. 3257)
The New Jersey Assembly approved an eminent domain measure that now moves to the state senate for consideration. The measure puts the burden on government to prove redevelopment is necessary, increases compensation requirements, and requires more notice be given when a municipality is looking to redevelop. The bill contains a number of changes to the blight process.

Defeated / Died in Committee (12)

Alabama (Adopted legislation in 2005; Rejected constitutional amendment in 2006)
Connecticut
Hawaii
Maryland
Mississippi
New Jersey
New York
Massachusetts
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
Virginia
Washington
Wyoming

Referendum / Constitutional Amendment (22)

Qualified for Ballot / State (9)

Florida
Georgia
Louisiana
Michigan
New Hampshire
Nevada
Oregon
North Dakota
South Carolina

Qualified for Ballot with Regulatory Takings Provisions (3)
Arizona
California
Idaho

Qualified for Ballot Regulatory Takings Only (1)
Washington

Qualified for Ballot — Local (1)
Orange County, California (Approved on June 6: 76%–24%)

Statewide Constitutional Amendment Referendum Defeated by Legislature (2)
Alabama
Kansas

Eminent Domain with Regulatory Takings Ballot Measure Failed to Qualify or Pending (6)
Colorado (Withdrawn)
Missouri (Removed by Court)
Montana (Removed by Court)
Nevada (Removed in part by Court)
Oklahoma (Removed by Court)
South Carolina (Defeated in Legislature)