Committee advances amendment to Alabama Property Protection Act to cover leases

A committee advanced an amendment to the Alabama Property Protection Act that would extend existing restrictions on property purchases to include leases by people "from a communist country," the bill sponsor told the panel.

The sponsor told members the original law — passed a few years earlier — barred purchases of property within a 10-mile radius of military installations, critical infrastructure or agricultural land by people "from a communist country," and that the amendment simply “added leases.”

The bill sponsor said, “a couple years back, I passed the Alabama Property Protection Act, which, you know, basically said if you're from a communist country, you can't purchase property in the state of Alabama, around 10 mile radius around military installation, critical infrastructure, or ag land. What I didn't know and just brought to my attention this past summer that we have some people that are leasing properties to these communist countries, and that's the concern. So, basically, it's the same bill we passed. We just added leases, and that's it.”

Committee members asked whether the amendment included penalties or enforcement mechanisms; the sponsor answered that the bill text does not specify a penalty, saying, “There's no penalty. It just says you can't do it.” A member clarified that the practical effect would be to prevent transactions from being completed, and the sponsor agreed.

Members also raised concerns from local economic and farming stakeholders. One member said their economic developer had expressed worry about corporate ownership structures — "a lot of the foreign companies do have individuals from different places that are part of their corporation" — and the sponsor said farming-industry concerns had been reported to them.

The sponsor said the bill’s scope as amended reflects changes made in the other chamber when the measure moved through the legislature: “When we passed in the house, I just did China. When we went upstairs to the senate, that was their amendment that they put on the bill.” The sponsor said the amendment is permissive rather than mandatory: a company or property owner could choose to be subject to the restriction, but would not be forced into it.

Committee members moved and seconded a motion for a favorable report. The clerk called the voice vote; members answered “aye,” and the motion received a favorable report in committee.

The transcript does not record a detailed numerical vote tally, the bill sponsor's full name in the transcript excerpt, or any statutory citation beyond the bill title referenced in discussion.