House Bill 1063 Eminent Domain for Commercial Purposes. Failed by a vote of 24-25. It would have prohibited transfer of property acquired by a political subdivision to another person for commercial use unless the transfer would create jobs and the property was in a blighted area.

House Bill 1063

Eminent domain for commercial uses. Provides that the state or a political subdivision may not use eminent domain to acquire property for public use to transfer any interest in property to another person for commercial use unless the property owner has rejected an offer from the state or a political subdivision that is equal to at least the
higher of 150% of the property’s assessed value or the average of 3 appraisals of the property.

Passed the House 67 – 29.

If I’m not mistaken, this was the subject of a case the Supreme Court recently heard entitled Kelo v. New London. The Indiana Law Blog has good coverage of the case.

This bill seems to be a decent solution. I would suggest strengthening the bill a bit by requiring not only that the property owner have rejected an offer of 150% but also require that if eminent domain is exercised that the political subdivision actually have to pay at least 150%. (Maybe the eminent domain statute requires that the compensation be at least as much as the highest offer or somesuch. I have not read that statute in quite awhile.)

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?)