Anatomy of a Compensation Award. From $11,000 to $1.1 Million.

State: Ohio

Eminent Domain Use to take: 0.338 acres of land for an overpass and bridge by the Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission

The Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission sues and the initial eminent domain award: $11,865, the last settlement offer

The landowners appealed the initial eminent domain award to a jury that awarded: $1.1 Million in damagfes reflecting the land owner’s appraiser’s appraisal

Cleveland Scene | Jury Awards Lorain Family $1 Million in Damages in Ohio Turnpike Eminent Domain Case

An economic development and private property rights tie?

During discussion of a Navarro County, TX resolution designed to protect private property rights, the Economic Development director asked this question:

whether an economic impact study on the communities to be affected by the railway?

The response: No, such an economic impact study had not been undertaken.

A clarification: An economic impact study, which was released in October 2015, that showed every county touched by the project — rural and urban could receive significant, long-term tax revenue benefits from the project.

Mass Transit | TX: Commissioners Deny TCR Access — No County Roads Will Close

Lege TREND. Conservation Easements In the Blue Columbine State. 2 Reasons Bills are bad for Property Rights

Colorado’s proposed HB-18 1122, 1123, and 1194 are said to be bad for private proeprty rights because the bills would:

change conservation easements from private decisions to a government process
takes the decision making away from the landowner and gives it to the legislature

Journal Advocate | Letter: Bills threaten landowners’ privacy

3 Points from Resolution 102-2018 of the Navarro County TX Commissioners Court Protecting Private Property Rights.

Resolution 102-2018 of the Navarro County Commissioners Court seeks to protect private property rights from a high speed rail project by:

not to closing, nor relocating, any roads for Texas Central Railroad
no railway company has the authority to close roads, and “TCR is not a railway company”
the county will “decline to close ANY road for route for any railway or non-railway company.”

Mass Transit| TX: Commissioners Deny TCR Access — No County Roads Will Close

TREND forecast: New US Supreme Court Case. New Eminent Rule on Private Property Compensation.

What’s happening? Refreshing our recollection- a billionaire beach front property owner near San Francisco is now required by law and state court rulings to open his private beach to surfers.

What are these surfers facing with the US Supreme Court? If the Court takes the case, the issue will be whether government can command that parties open their private property to the public without compensation.

SF Gate | Martins Beach billionaire owner takes fight over public access to US Supreme Court

Lege Trend. Increase Compensation for Eminent Domain. Except for Cities.

Wisconsin AB 770 will “fundamentally re-write” eminent domain compensation to landowners. Here’s how:

including in compensation “reasonable project costs” like relocating & restarting your business
raise the maximum compensation amounts offered to both tenants (up tp $80K) and property owners (Up to 100K)
retain the maximum compensation caps only for citiesm towns and villages but not for private entities or state agencies

Opponents say:

great cost to state government, utilities & other entities that routinely buy land to make room for public projects

Supporters, like the Wisconsin Realtor Association say:

“They are just going to have to pay for what the property is actually worth.”

Shepherd Express | Is a Last-Minute Bill to Help Developers that’s Being Jammed through the Legislature Going to Create Future Problems?

Lege Trend Update. Protecting Property Rights from Trespassers in the West. The Opposition & The Attorney General Opinion.

The sole committee member voting against Idaho’s RS26114 | HB 536 asked for an opinion from the Idaho Attorney General on the constitutionality of increasing trespass penalties.

Did the Idaho Attorney General find the trespass increases constitutional? No

What constitutional issues did the Idaho Attorney General raise? “(The bill), as written, appears to be overly broad as it proscribes a great amount of lawful conduct and runs afoul of First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment protections”

Other opposition? Idaho Sheriff’s Association, Idaho Association of Counties & Idaho Prosecuting Attorneys Association

Idaho Statesman | Trespassing bill may violate Constitution, conflict with Idaho law, analysis says

Refreshing our recollection on informed:intel, February 12, 2018

Increasing Trespass Penalties & Fees to Protect Property Rights. Read the Bill from the West.

Idaho is considering RS26114 | HB 536 that will set trespass fees:

$50 to $500
increased fees for intentional trespass
a 3rd offense would be a felony

The bill’s author, a rancher, said of current trespass laws:

the laws are a patchwork
the orange markings property owners are required to put up every 660 feet are onerous
recreational trespass penalties are higher than criminal trespass penalties

in addition to streamlining penaltiesalso requires:

property owners to mark property at property boundaries, access points and streams.

AP | New Bill Would Tweak Idaho’s Trespassing Laws

Spokesman Review | Trespass 3 times and you’d face a felony under new Idaho proposal

Lege TREND. Reigning in Blight with Laundry Lists. What's on the Wild Sunflower state bill?

Kansas is considering House Bill 2506 (2018) that excludes the following from blight designations:

less than 15 month vacancy when there are unpaid taxes on the property
if there are legal disputes over the property like probate or title issues its not eligible for blight
if an owner confirms in writing that the issues will be fixed within 90 days
requires that if a code violation triggers blight designation, then there has to be a health or safety risk
- ex: inadequate drainage would no longer trigger. a blight designation

Hays Post | From the Dome to Home: Waymaster newsletter

Property Rights. Land Use. Billboards. A Billboard Bill in the Sego Lily State. 3 Bits informed intel.

Utah’s HB 361 (2018) requires:

that eminent domain laws, including legal process and procedure, apply to billboard relocation
- this engages city council members in the process instead of non-elected employees
- providse stronger guidance for compensation
if there is no agreement on sign price or relocation within 90 days, then the billboard comapny can relocate it.
blocked signs can be relocated and raised

Opponents say:

Using eminent domain laws will add years to the process of relocation
It allows for unilateral conversion to digital signs

Opponents, local governments, point to the following campaign contributions from supporters:

$1,700 to House Majority Whip Francis Gibson, sponsor of the current bill
a combined $79,630 to 75 of Utah’s 104 legislators
gave the 3rd largest amount of any donor in UT

Salt Lake Tribune | Cities say big-donor billboard firms push sneaky bill to allow bigger, lighted displays without local OK