Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill shielding racing facilities from nuisance suits within set radiuses
Summary
House Bill 1066 would limit nuisance claims tied to long‑standing racing operations by defining a racing operation and creating a radius (5 miles rural, 3 miles non‑rural) around tracks; the committee advanced the bill after a contentious exchange over material‑change language and local control, passing by hand vote 9–8.
Floor Leader Wade presented House Bill 1066, a proposal to define "racing operation," enumerate nuisances customarily associated with racing ("noise, vibration, dust, traffic, lighting, fumes, and emissions"), and draw protective radiuses around racing facilities — five miles in rural counties and three miles in non‑rural counties. Wade said the bill preserves local zoning and does not change EPD or EPA environmental standards.
Representative Roberts pressed constitutional and policy concerns, arguing the bill could grant "absolute immunity" to racing operations across a large acreage and would deny many property owners access to nuisance claims. Roberts said in subcommittee testimony there are "41 race tracks in Georgia, that's over 2,000,000 acres" and called the radius "insane." Wade and legislative counsel replied that "material change" would still be litigable, that local permitting processes remain relevant, and that the statute addresses the threshold for nuisance actions rather than government powers.
Committee members debated the distinction between "changed conditions" and "material change" in the bill's text; several members asked legislative council to clarify language to reduce ambiguity. Representative Oliver said she would vote no on policy grounds, calling the measure part of a broader pattern of granting immunity to particular industries. Other members, including Chairman Leverett, said clarifying definitions could make the statute workable.
After extended discussion the committee took a hand vote. The chair counted nine hands in favor and eight opposed; the motion passed and the bill advanced out of committee.
