Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Foreign Investment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legislators track bills tightening restrictions on foreign ownership and development agreements
Summary
Staff flagged measures that would lower ownership thresholds for prohibited foreign investments and would bar development agreements with parties listed as foreign adversaries; committee resources and vetting requirements were discussed.
Legislative staff reviewed two related strands of legislation that would tighten state controls on foreign investment in land and on development agreements with entities identified as foreign adversaries.
One tracking note in the briefing described a bill that would reduce the ownership threshold for prohibited foreign investments in agricultural land and development from 50% to 25%; the tracking sheet did not identify a specific bill number for that description. Separately, Senate Bill 2,314 would create prohibitions and penalties for development agreements with individuals or governments identified as foreign adversaries under federal rules or on the Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctions list, with limited grandfathering for entities registered at least seven years and with national security agreements.
Why it matters: The measures would affect city councils, county commissions and state entities asked to approve development agreements. Staff raised questions about how local bodies would vet applicants and whether state resources would be available to assist the vetting process.
Details: Staff noted that, under the foreign-adversary proposal, local governments would be prohibited from approving agreements with parties designated as foreign adversaries unless they meet the bill's grandfathering conditions. An attendee asked whether state resources would be available to assist local governments with vetting; the staff reply was that applicants should provide required documentation as part of due diligence and that he was not aware of additional state resources.
What was not decided: The briefing captured descriptions and questions about implementation but no committee votes or final policy decisions.
Ending: Staff suggested local governments include vetting requirements in their due-diligence checklists and to request applicant disclosures as necessary.
