Tennessee Senate Bill SB1984

Tennessee 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/24/24
• Engrossed: 4/10/24
• Enrolled: 4/29/24
• Passed: 5/28/24
• Chaptered: 5/31/24

Caption

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

Impact

This legislation intends to impact how local and state governments approach property acquisition for various projects. By narrowing the definition of public use, the bill could potentially hinder projects that require the use of eminent domain for private developments that might indirectly benefit the public. Proponents argue that it is essential to protect property rights and ensure that individuals are not unjustly stripped of their land for purposes that do not serve the direct public interest.

Summary

Senate Bill 1984 seeks to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29, Chapter 17, Part 1, concerning the parameters of eminent domain. The bill clarifies what constitutes 'public use' in the context of property acquisition, explicitly excluding recreational facilities, parks, private benefit, and economic development activities unless certain conditions are met. It aims to strengthen the definition of 'public use' to ensure that the government is not overly broad in its application of eminent domain, particularly when it comes to private developments that could be deemed beneficial indirectly, such as increased tax revenue or employment opportunities.

Sentiment

The reception of SB 1984 within the legislative assembly appears to be largely supportive, as evidenced by the voting outcomes. The bill passed with a significant majority during the third consideration vote, reflecting a consensus among legislators that property rights should be prioritized. However, there remains a cautionary sentiment among opponents who worry about the potential stifling of economic growth if too many restrictions are placed on property acquisition for development purposes.

Contention

While the overarching focus of the bill is on clarifying eminent domain rules, it has sparked discussions about the balance between state authority and economic opportunity. Detractors emphasize that overly stringent definitions of public use could obstruct vital economic developments, particularly in urban renewal contexts, where revitalization often involves partnerships with private entities. Therefore, the bill represents a larger debate over the role of government in facilitating economic growth versus the protection of individual property rights.