Checkmark
Legislation watch
     

Search all years.

2007 House Bill 2016: Changing provisions pertaining to eminent domain.
Introduced by Rep. Larry Springer (Kirkland) (D) on February 5, 2007
To require that, when real property is acquired through condemnation or under the threat of condemnation, the owner of the property may retain an option to repurchase the property. The bill also requires that additional notice be given to property owners.   Official Text and Analysis.
Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on February 5, 2007
Referred to the House Rules Committee on February 28, 2007
Amendment offered by Rep. Jay Rodne (North Bend) (R) on March 10, 2007
To prohibit condemnation for economic purposes whether or not the condemnation is "solely" for such purposes.
The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on March 10, 2007
Amendment offered by Rep. Jay Rodne (North Bend) (R) on March 10, 2007
To clarify that the exceptions to the prohibition on condemnation for economic development must be for the unqualified "purpose" of making the various listed transfers, rather than for the "primary purpose" of making those transfers.
The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on March 10, 2007
Amendment offered by Rep. Jay Rodne (North Bend) (R) on March 10, 2007
To require that a lease of condemned property to a private entity within a public project must be a "merely incidental" part of the project in order to qualify as an exception to the prohibition against condemnations for economic development.
The amendment failed 47 to 50 in the House on March 10, 2007.
    See Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No".
Amendment offered by Rep. Jay Rodne (North Bend) (R) on March 10, 2007
To express legislative intent to prohibit the exercise of eminent domain except to the extent necessary for a stated public use. Defines public use to mean actual possession, occupation and use by the general public or the state, or the use of land by common carriers. Declares that public use may not be equated with economic development, job creation, or tax base improvement or tax revenue enhancement. Expresses the intent that the kind of economic development in the Kelo decision is not to be construed as a public use.
The amendment failed 47 to 50 in the House on March 10, 2007.
    See Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No".
Amendment offered by Rep. Jay Rodne (North Bend) (R) on March 10, 2007
To require that in order to qualify as an exception to the prohibition against condemning property for economic development, a transfer of property to a private entity to remove a threat to public health or safety must be based on the present condition and use of the property.
The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on March 10, 2007
Received in the Senate on March 13, 2007
Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 13, 2007
Referred to the Senate Rules Committee on March 30, 2007
Received in the House on January 14, 2008
Referred to the House Rules Committee on January 29, 2008
Amendment offered by Rep. Ed Orcutt (Kalama) (R) on February 13, 2008
To provide that an owner of condemned property may elect to retain the right to receive proceeds from the sale of the condemned property if the condemned property is sold within 7 years. Requiring the former owner to elect between the right to receive proceeds or the right to repurchase the property (which is currently provided for in the striking amendment). Provides that the amount of proceeds is the difference between: (a) the price at which the property is sold; and (b) the amount of the compensation received from the acquiring entity when the property was condemned, with interest accrued at the market rate, and with the amount adjusted to reflect the value of any physical changes to the property.
The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on February 13, 2008
Amendment offered by Rep. Jay Rodne (North Bend) (R) on February 13, 2008
To express legislative intent to prohibit the exercise of eminent domain except to the extent necessary for a stated public use. Defines public use to mean actual possession, occupation, and use by the general public or the state, or the use of land by common carriers. Declares that public use may not be equated with economic development, job creation, or tax base improvement or tax revenue enhancement. Expresses the intent that the kind of economic development in the Kelo decision is not to be construed as a public use.
The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on February 13, 2008
Amendment offered in the House on February 13, 2008
To require that, when real property is acquired through condemnation or under the threat of condemnation, the owner of the property may retain an option to repurchase the property. The bill also requires that additional notice be given to property owners. Removes language prohibiting condemnation "solely for the purpose of economic development" and instead prohibits condemnations that are "substantially for the purpose of: Increasing tax revenues or the tax base; increasing employment; or transferring private property to another private person or entity." Exempts from this prohibition the use of eminent domain by a county, city, or town under the Community Renewal Law and another chapter of law concerning blighted property. Also exempts port districts, public service companies, and common carriers.
The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on February 13, 2008
Received in the Senate on February 15, 2008
Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 15, 2008
Amendment offered in the Senate on February 29, 2008
To provide that the condemnor must accept for consideration all reasonable alternatives submitted by the owner up to 90 days after the condemnor provides written notice to acquire the property to the property owner. Reasonable alternatives must be related to the specific property to be condemned and must not include alternatives to the overall project for which the condemnation is sought. The standard of judicial review of public use and necessity in condemnation actions is not affected by the condemnor's consideration of other alternatives. The condemnor is required to pay the reasonable expenses actually incurred for evaluation of a condemnor's offer to buy a property, but it is not to exceed the lesser of $10,000 or 1 percent of the value of the parcel or $750, whichever is greater. Reasonable expenses do not include costs incurred to evaluate or propose alternatives to the condemnation or to evaluate or challenge the legality of the condemnation process or project. The option to repurchase property that was condemned does not apply if there is a federal prohibition or if it would result in reduced federal funding. The repurchase option also does not apply if transfer of title to the property to another governmental entity is required as part of the project or public purpose for which the property was acquired and the sale of the property to a public entity is for a public purpose. Market rate is defined as two percentage points above the equivalent coupon issue yield of the average bill rate for twenty-six week treasury bills. Eminent domain cannot be solely related to economic development, rather than substantially related.
Referred to the Senate Transportation Committee on February 29, 2008