Introduced Version, House Bill 1063 This bill prohibits the use of eminent domain to acquire property for commercial purposes. This is an interesting issue. Currently, I think eminent domain can be used by the government to take private property if it is done for the “public good”. I honestly don’t know if the question has been definitively settled under current Indiana law. But, the argument would go that taking your corn field and selling it or even giving it to some commercial or industrial interest will create jobs, generate tax revenues, and therefore be for the public good. That makes some sense, though it doesn’t feel right that Crony County (fictitious), Indiana should be able to take the property that’s been in your family for almost 200 years since they fought the Pottowatomis for it, shove a bargain basement “fair market value” down your throat, and turn the property over to Acme Co. to throw up a strip mall.

If such a law had been in place in Texas back when George W. Bush was with the Rangers, I believe it would have prevented him from making a good chunk of his fortune with the Rangers stadium deal, for example. (I wonder if anyone currently owns property in jeopardy of eminent domain from the new Colts stadium?)

Introduced Version, House Bill 1058 Allows minors 14-18 years old to operate snow mobiles and off road vehicles only on their parents’ property. Requires anyone under 18 to be wearing a helmet.

Introduced Version, House Bill 1025 is up for hearing today before the Public and Homeland Security Committee. I covered this a bit earlier and Rep. Koch as well. He also wants to require the DNR to make payments in lieu of taxes to counties in which its acreage is located. The payments come from the state general fund. So, it would basically be a matter of transferring wealth from counties without DNR land to counties with it.

Daniels taps pair to fill jobs posts

Ron Stiver, a brand strategy and sales manager for Eli Lilly and Co., will be commissioner of the Department of Workforce Development, which handles unemployment claims, keeps statistics on Indiana’s work force and spearheads worker retraining efforts.

To be fair, he also appointed a Columbus corporate attorney, Miguel Rivera, to the Dept. of Labor. So, while it’s still the business community, it’s a good 35+ miles south of I-465.

State tax amnesty bill sent to House: Rep. Eric Turner has introduced a “tax amnesty” bill that gives tax debtors an as yet to be determined 8 week period to pay taxes without penalty or interest charges. Proponents say “we need the money”. Detractors say, “it’s a cheater’s rights bill.”

As written currently, HB 1004 would also double the penalty against a debtor who has the opportunity pay under the tax amnesty program but fails to do so.

This kind of makes me wonder what the current practice is with regard to tax collection efforts currently in litigation. I wonder if the State will cut a deal with debtors to settle in full if they pay a lump sum equal to their principal debt, waiving the extras. If they do that kind of thing already, I wouldn’t have any problem with this bill. If not, I have mixed feelings.

Introduced Version, Senate Bill 0217 It never passes, but Sen. Server has introduced a bill to raise the speed limit on Interstates from 65 to 70 mph.

(Maybe they could play up the economic development angle. When given an option, I chose a route that was a few miles longer because it was primarily through states with 70 mph speed limits.)

Introduced Version, Senate Bill 0178

Provides that a consumer may prevent access to the consumer’s credit report by requesting that the consumer reporting agency place a security freeze on the consumer’s credit report.

This one seems riddled with potential problems. If an individual requests a “security freeze” on their credit report, the reporting agency is then only allowed to give the information to government and law enforcement entities, creditors of the individual for use in collecting on the debt, and the consumer. (I have some vague recollection that it is currently not entirely appropriate for creditors to use credit reporting information to collect a debt.)

It allows the reporting agency to disregard the request if it’s based on “false information” even though the individual isn’t required to provide any reason for the freeze. It also seems like there would be First Amendment and federal preemption issues involved. Maybe the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I also get the feeling that the genie is already out of the bottle with regard to dissemination of our personal information. At this late date, I don’t think you can ever be certain that someone isn’t privy to your personal information.

Introduced Version, Senate Bill 0171: Basically specifies that personal property taxes constitute a lien on personal property that is superior to that of another creditor. Requires a creditor coming into possession of personal property because of a lien to apply proceeds to the personal property tax before applying proceeds to its own lien.

Introduced Version, Senate Bill 0168

Way to go Sen. Alting! This bill corrects what I assume to be a drafting error. The existing statute provides that an emergency technician providing emergency care is immune from civil liability unless their act constitutes “negligence or willful misconduct.” If the intent was to offer some protection to emergency responders, allowing them to attempt to provide care without excess concern over civil liability, the existing version doesn’t do a thing. If the medical provider isn’t at least negligent, there wouldn’t be any liability to begin with. The new bill amends the law to provide immunity unless there is “gross negligence or willful misconduct.”

I had a client ask me about this statute earlier in the year, and I advised them that it was essentially worthless.

Introduced Version, Senate Bill 0166 Requires high school health to include fetal development in the curriculum, including “photographic images portraying each state of uterine fetal development” and “health consequences of early termination of pregnancy” (but no requirement that health consequences of the pregnancy itself be taught.) Again, I’m not a big fan of overly specific curriculum requirements.

This is obviously an effort to skew the message teen receive about the effects and consequences of pregnancy. They should be given lots of information about pregnancy, not just this specific set of facts and pictures.