Bill 1: Requires that the compensation commission meet in an open session with the landowner present. Currently, valuation is done in a closed door session.
Bill 2: When acquiring land for a lake, the agency must meet a clear and convincing standard and demonstrate there are no feasible alternatives available. Drinking water needs are based only on current usage. Provides resources for landowners: a 2nd water usage study at the expense of the acquiring agency; attorney’s fees in a contested proceeding; and reimbursement for loss of existing business relationships when a business cannot be relocated. Limits municipality’s ability to condemn agricultural land or land outside city limits.
Bill 3: Changes two standards for acquiring property for a lake: it must be reasonable and necessary; and demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence. Water needs are based on current usage, potential for groundwater usage, and shall use alternatives to the federal guidelines. Property owners can request a 2nd study to be done at the expense of the acquiring agency and request a public hearing to consider influence of a federal agency.
Bill 4: Property cannot be removed from the state historical register in order to have it condemned. State or local tax dollars can’t be used for lobbying efforts on behalf of a project requiring use of eminent domain. The condemning authority must have adequate funding for a project before land is condemned. Increases the legal standard to “clear and convincing” and provides for loss of existing business relationships.
Bill 5: Projects acquiring land through eminent domain are excluded from receiving state tourism or community betterment funds.
Bill 6: Establishes a property owner defense fund to reimburse incurred legal costs.
Bill 7: Requires the Governor’s signature on a project where the state uses condemnation. Precludes the DNR from using condemning authority for recreational areas in the state.
Bill 2: When acquiring land for a lake, the agency must meet a clear and convincing standard and demonstrate there are no feasible alternatives available. Drinking water needs are based only on current usage. Provides resources for landowners: a 2nd water usage study at the expense of the acquiring agency; attorney’s fees in a contested proceeding; and reimbursement for loss of existing business relationships when a business cannot be relocated. Limits municipality’s ability to condemn agricultural land or land outside city limits.
Bill 3: Changes two standards for acquiring property for a lake: it must be reasonable and necessary; and demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence. Water needs are based on current usage, potential for groundwater usage, and shall use alternatives to the federal guidelines. Property owners can request a 2nd study to be done at the expense of the acquiring agency and request a public hearing to consider influence of a federal agency.
Bill 4: Property cannot be removed from the state historical register in order to have it condemned. State or local tax dollars can’t be used for lobbying efforts on behalf of a project requiring use of eminent domain. The condemning authority must have adequate funding for a project before land is condemned. Increases the legal standard to “clear and convincing” and provides for loss of existing business relationships.
Bill 5: Projects acquiring land through eminent domain are excluded from receiving state tourism or community betterment funds.
Bill 6: Establishes a property owner defense fund to reimburse incurred legal costs.
Bill 7: Requires the Governor’s signature on a project where the state uses condemnation. Precludes the DNR from using condemning authority for recreational areas in the state.
.jpg)
2 comments:
Why can't we do this?...
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/15998752.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8691.html
Gee, I hope this type of thing only happened at the NRCC and there isn't a trickle down effect to state parties using similar practices. Who do the parties learn their accounting practices from? Does the national party give guidance or do the state parties independently do their own thing?
Post a Comment