Tennessee House Bill HB2120

Tennessee 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/24/24
• Refer: 1/29/24
• Refer: 2/27/24
• Refer: 3/6/24
• Refer: 4/17/24
• Chaptered: 5/31/24
• Passed: 5/31/24

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29, Chapter 17, Part 1, relative to eminent domain.

Impact

The passage of HB2120 could drastically alter the landscape of property rights and governmental authority in Tennessee. By narrowing the definition of public use, the bill may limit the ability of local governments and agencies to acquire land for projects that previously may have been deemed beneficial for public welfare, including urban development initiatives aimed at revitalizing blighted areas. This could stall or hinder projects that would typically lead to enhanced community facilities and economic rejuvenation.

Summary

House Bill 2120 is designed to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29, Chapter 17, Part 1, specifically focusing on the parameters surrounding the concept of eminent domain. The bill seeks to redefine what constitutes 'public use' in the context of land acquisition. In a significant shift, the legislation proposes to exclude recreational facilities, parks, and private benefits from the definition of public use, allowing for more restrictive interpretations of government authority in land taking for economic development.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB2120 appears mixed, with supporters lauding the measure as a necessary restriction on government power that will protect private property rights. However, opponents argue that the bill undermines public interests and restricts essential urban development initiatives that could benefit communities in the long run. The ongoing debate reflects broader tensions between property rights advocates and proponents of community-focused development strategies.

Contention

Notable points of contention associated with HB2120 include concerns about its potential to hinder urban development and reduce local governments' abilities to respond to community needs. Critics fear that the bill's limitations on eminent domain could stall projects intended for public good, such as parks or affordable housing, potentially perpetuating economic disparities in urban environments. The juxtaposition of private property rights against community development needs is likely to remain a focal point in discussions regarding the bill's implications.