Senate committee holds bill that would let owners seek return of unused eminent‑domain land after 25 years

A legislative committee held Bill 36‑0070 — a proposal that would let former owners petition to reclaim land taken by eminent domain if it is not used for its intended public purpose within 25 years — after a wide‑ranging hearing and a 7‑0 roll call. The motion to hold the bill in committee at the call of the chair passed by roll call vote.

The bill, sponsored by Senator Alma Francis Heiliger, would add a new section to Title 28 of the Virgin Islands Code to allow “the property owner, or the heirs and successors” to petition a court for return of land when the government has not put the parcel to the public use stated at acquisition. “If a property is taken by eminent domain for a specific purpose and it is 10 years, 20 years, 25 years had passed, and nothing has been done with that property, … the property owner, or the heirs and successors can go ahead and petition our courts for that property to be returned to them,” Senator Alma Francis Heiliger said during the hearing.

Why it matters: lawmakers and several executive agencies described the bill as an accountability measure that would protect private owners from long periods in which the government holds land without visible development. Opponents — primarily the Department of Property and Procurement and the Department of Planning and Natural Resources — said the fixed 25‑year deadline could hobble long‑range infrastructure, prompt litigation over what counts as “use,” and leave the territory paying less than market value if title reverts.

Commissioner Lisa Maria Alejandro of the Department of Property and Procurement told the committee the agency recognizes eminent domain’s role but warned the measure could “undermine long term projects and create unnecessary pressure on agencies to rush development in order to avoid potential reversion claims.” Alejandro said major capital projects commonly face delays from permitting, funding and federal reviews; she urged clearer definitions for “public use” and for objective markers of progress rather than a single time‑based trigger.

Assistant Commissioner Josette J. Walker of the Department of Planning and Natural Resources urged flexibility to allow repurposing for alternate public uses, and recommended procedural safeguards including a “repurposing clause” and regular public reporting on eminent‑domain parcels. “A fixed 25 year window for public use, even with a reversion clause, could inadvertently stall infrastructure pipelines or result in rushed suboptimal development,” Walker said.

Legal counsel and multiple senators pressed for clarity about what constitutes a failure to use: is planning and permitting work enough, or must there be visible construction? Attorney Magdalene A. Maransi, identified in testimony as legal counsel to the Department of Property and Procurement, said the bill does not presently define “failure to put the property to the intended purpose,” and suggested the committee consider statutory definitions or examples that specify “lack of progress” and what steps (design, permits, contracts) count as meaningful progress.

The bill would also allow the Superior Court to grant reversion if a petitioner repays the original compensation paid by government, and it would bar the government from condemning the same property again for 10 years after a court grants reversion. Department witnesses said returning only the original compensation could create a public loss if the property’s market value has appreciated materially since condemnation.

Outcome and next steps: the committee voted to hold Bill 36‑0070 in committee at the call of the chair. The motion was moved by Senator Dwayne M. De Grama and seconded by Senator Anya L. Bocas Jr.; a roll call recorded seven yeas and zero nays. Sponsor Alma Francis Heiliger said she is open to amendments — including clearer definitions of “public use,” progress metrics, transparency requirements and a right‑of‑first‑refusal mechanism — and expects to return the bill for further committee work.

What the record shows: testimony and questioning focused on balancing private‑property rights with the government’s need for flexibility in long‑range infrastructure projects, and on building objective, auditable triggers (for example, defined planning milestones or public reporting requirements) so courts would have clearer standards if reversion petitions are filed.

The committee did not adopt language at the hearing; staff and agencies were asked to collaborate with the sponsor on possible statutory revisions before the bill returns to committee.