Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment Eminent Domain topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House debate over redevelopment bill pits property-rights advocates against local-government tools; amendment fails, bill circled
Summary
Lawmakers spent much of Feb. 13 debating HB 67, a bill that would limit redevelopment agencies’ use of eminent domain. An amendment to restore RDAs’ eminent-domain power failed; the House then voted to 'circle' (temporarily set aside) the bill for further work.
Fellow representatives debated House Bill 67 on Feb. 13, centering on whether local redevelopment agencies should retain the power to use eminent domain to assemble property for redevelopment. Representative Hunter, who moved to uncircle the substitute bill, framed the measure as protecting private property rights and said it would "make an even playing field for the citizen of the state of Utah versus the government agency" and curb what he described as an improper use of a coercive power.
The bill's sponsor and supporters argued the legislation would restrict RDAs’ ability to take property from one private owner and give it to another; Representative Bradford referenced the Fifth Amendment when warning against takings for private benefit. Opponents mounted a counterargument: Representative Hickman offered a pink-sheet amendment that would restore the RDA’s eminent-domain authority in the substitute bill, saying that in his district (Saint George) the power "has worked extremely well" and that local jurisdictions should retain that tool to negotiate and assemble projects.
Floor debate was vigorous and at times personal. Representative Garn warned that removing tools from local governments would hamper efforts to "rescue" blighted areas, emphasizing tax-increment financing and other tools used for local redevelopment. Representative Oskarsen moved the previous question to cut debate; after summations the amendment restoring RDAs’ eminent-domain authority failed by recorded house vote, 24 yes to 40 no. Later procedural voting resulted in the body voting to circle the bill (36 yes, 30 no), effectively pausing its immediate progress for further work.
Why it matters: the dispute juxtaposes two enduring policy tensions — protecting private property rights against the use of government authority to assemble land for projects proponents argue serve community renewal. Both sides cited practical experience: supporters of the amendment pointed to local projects and negotiations that, they said, used the power responsibly; opponents pointed to the threat that eminent-domain authority poses to individual owners who lack resources to fight government-backed takings.
The immediate result was procedural: the restoration amendment failed, and the bill was circled for further attention, meaning it will be revisited rather than advanced to final passage at this time.
