Connecticut Senate Bill SJ00036

Connecticut 2016 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/29/16
• Refer: 2/29/16
• Report Pass: 3/21/16
• Refer: 4/4/16
• Report Pass: 4/11/16
• Refer: 4/26/16
• Report Pass: 4/29/16
• Report Pass: 5/4/16
• Enrolled: 5/25/16

Caption

Resolution Proposing An Amendment To The Constitution Of The State To Protect Real Property Held Or Controlled By The State.

Impact

If passed, this resolution will reform the process by which real property transactions are conducted at the state level. It introduces an additional layer of oversight by mandating public hearings for any proposed sale or transfer of state-controlled property. Moreover, the requirement of a two-thirds majority in both houses of the General Assembly represents a significant legislative hurdle, which proponents argue will protect valuable state assets from political whims or decisions that may not be in the public interest.

Summary

Senate Joint Resolution No. 36 proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the State aimed at protecting real property held or controlled by state agencies. The amendment stipulates that no legislation can require a state agency to sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of any real property without a public hearing and a two-thirds vote by the General Assembly. This change is intended to safeguard state-owned properties from being unwarrantedly transferred to non-state entities, thereby ensuring a level of accountability and process in the management of state assets.

Sentiment

The sentiment around SJ00036 appears to be generally supportive, particularly among those who advocate for stronger property rights and greater transparency in government dealings. Advocates believe that involving the public and ensuring robust legislative debate will lead to better decision-making. However, there may also be concerns about potential delays in property transactions due to the additional requirements, leading to critiques from some legislators who value efficiency in state governance.

Contention

Notable points of contention regarding SJ00036 include the balance between necessary oversight and potential bureaucratic hindrances. Critics may argue that the additional requirements for public hearings and legislative voting could slow down vital transactions that may be essential for economic development or state needs. The debate encapsulates broader philosophical discussions on the role of government in managing assets and ensuring public interest, highlighting perspectives on administrative efficiency versus accountability.