Connecticut Senate Bill SJ00006

Connecticut 2017 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/4/17
• Refer: 1/4/17

Caption

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

Impact

If ratified, this amendment would reinforce the state's authority over its real estate holdings, providing a stronger legal framework for protecting these properties. The change in the constitution would likely limit the circumstances under which state properties could be altered, sold, or otherwise compromised, ensuring that any such actions align with the interests of the state. Overall, this could have implications for how state resources and assets are managed and utilized throughout the jurisdiction.

Summary

Senate Joint Resolution No. 6, introduced by Senator Witkos, seeks to amend the state constitution to enhance the protection of real property that is held or controlled by the state. This measure resubmits resolution act 16-1 which had previously been approved by a majority but fell short of the three-fourths requirement for constitutional amendments. The objective is to ensure that state-owned properties are safeguarded from encroachments that may jeopardize their integrity and intended use.

Contention

The discussions surrounding SJ00006 may revolve around the balance of state control versus local autonomy in property management. There could be concerns regarding the potential overreach of the state's powers and how such amendments could impact local governments' ability to make decisions related to land use and other matters concerning properties within their jurisdictions. Stakeholders might express differing views on the necessity of such amendments, weighing the need for state protection against the importance of local governance.

Notable_points

The resolution draws attention to the ongoing debate on property rights at the state versus local levels, particularly in the context of expanding government powers. Proponents of the amendment might argue that it provides essential protections to state assets, while opponents could caution against unintended consequences, such as limiting local governments' ability to respond to community needs. This ongoing dialogue emphasizes the importance of transparency and collaboration in policymaking.