Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Boards Agencies Commissions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to bar certain state boards from condemning property
Summary
A legislative committee gave a favorable report, as amended, to a bill that would prevent some sunsetted professional boards from acquiring property by condemnation while preserving acquisition powers for cities and government entities; the amendment sets an effective date of June 1, 2025.
A legislative committee voted to give a favorable report, as amended, to a bill that would prevent certain state boards that were created under sunset review from acquiring property by condemnation.
The bill sponsor said the measure would not bar cities or other government entities from acquiring property for public use but would remove condemnation authority from some professional boards, which the sponsor described as an inappropriate use of power. The committee adopted an amendment setting an effective date of June 1, 2025, and approved the bill for further consideration by voice vote.
Sponsor and rationale
The bill sponsor (Representative, unnamed) said the bill targets an anomaly in state law that allows some sunsetted boards — such as, the sponsor cited, the board of pharmacy — to acquire property by condemnation. "I don't believe that professional boards should be able to condemn property," the sponsor said, arguing that condemnation is intended for public uses such as roads or economic-development projects and not for boards that regulate professions.
The sponsor told the committee the proposal is intended to protect private property rights and to clarify state policy so that a private owner cannot be compelled to sell to a professional regulatory board. The sponsor said the bill would not prohibit "the city of Mobile or any government entity" from acquiring property when those entities are acting for public purposes.
Public example and committee questions
A commenter identified as Gavin told the committee he had a local example in Dalton County where he said the mayor had sought to purchase land that was otherwise sitting idle. "In Dalton County, we have a situation right now where the mayor has made proposals to take some land in the domain," Gavin said during remarks recorded in the hearing.
Members asked whether there are documented instances of boards using condemnation authority for private development or profit. The sponsor said some authorities or agencies have purchased land and developed it in ways the sponsor found concerning and that the statute authorizing such powers dates back to some enactments in the 1960s. The sponsor said he consulted Legislative Services (LSA) after a prior session and that many of the affected boards did not object to removing the power.
Amendment and committee action
A committee member identified themselves and offered an amendment to "uniform the dates," replacing specific lines in the bill text with an effective date of 06/01/2025 and adding a conforming section. The amendment was seconded and adopted by voice vote with no recorded opposition. Representative Lawrence moved that the committee give the bill a favorable report as amended; the motion was seconded by Mac Butler. The chair called for ayes and nays and announced, "The ayes have it," recording a favorable report.
What the bill does and limits of record
On the record, the bill as discussed would strip condemnation/acquisition power from certain boards created under sunset review but would not remove condemnation power from municipalities or other governmental entities when they act under their existing statutory authority. The transcript does not specify a complete list of affected boards or the exact statutory citations; the sponsor said affected authorities were "the only ones under sunset that have in their domain." The transcript also did not provide a roll-call vote or a recorded tally; the committee adopted the amendment and approved the favorable report by voice vote.
Next steps
With a favorable report as amended, the bill proceeds to the next stage of the legislative process for further consideration. The committee did not set a floor date during the recorded discussion.
Ending
Committee members who questioned the bill asked whether the original statutes that granted condemnation powers had a historical purpose; the sponsor said some authorities received such powers long ago and that removing the power now is intended to align policy with current views on property rights and the proper scope of professional boards.
