Tennessee House Bill HB2119

Tennessee 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/24/24
• Refer: 1/29/24
• Refer: 2/13/24
• Refer: 2/28/24
• Engrossed: 3/7/24
• Enrolled: 4/3/24
• Passed: 4/22/24
• Chaptered: 5/1/24

Caption

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

Impact

The implementation of HB2119 could have significant implications on state laws surrounding eminent domain. By adding layers of requirements and rights for property owners, the bill seeks to balance public needs for property with the rights of individuals. These regulations emphasize accountability and transparency in the condemnation process, aiming to protect property owners from unjustified takings which previously may have occurred based on broader interpretations of public necessity.

Summary

House Bill 2119 aims to amend the Tennessee Code by strengthening the requirements for the use of eminent domain. The bill stipulates that a condemner must prove, with a preponderance of evidence, that the property sought is necessary for a public use and that there is a reasonable plan and funding for the project. This change is intended to provide more protection for property owners against potential overreach in the use of eminent domain by ensuring that there is a clear necessity and a viable alternative to be explored before property can be taken.

Sentiment

The general sentiment around HB2119 appears to be mixed among lawmakers and the public. Supporters of the bill, particularly those advocating for property rights, view it as a necessary step to safeguard individuals from potential abuses of power. On the other hand, some critics argue it may hinder public projects by complicating the eminent domain process, potentially delaying vital infrastructure developments and other necessary undertakings that rely on property acquisition.

Contention

Notably, there are areas of contention within HB2119, particularly regarding the exceptions outlined in the bill. The legislation excludes projects related to essential services such as streets and utilities from these new requirements. This could be seen as a loophole by opponents, raising concerns about inconsistent application of eminent domain policies and the potential for essential projects to be expedited without similar scrutiny. The debate highlights the ongoing conflict between property rights and the necessity for infrastructure and public service development in Tennessee.