Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the National Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sen. Jacinda Hodges' bill would let state seek expropriation of property near military bases amid national-security findings
Summary
Sen. Jacinda Hodges told the Judiciary Committee SB 200 would allow the state military to seek expropriation of property held by foreign adversaries within 50 miles of military bases if a court finds a threat to public health or safety; opponents warned the bill’s definitions and radius are overly broad and could sweep in lawful residents and businesses.
Sen. Jacinda Hodges told the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 17 that SB 200 would amend the military code to give state military authorities a discretionary mechanism to expropriate property "if it is determined to be a risk to public safety and health." She emphasized the measure is permissive: "It is a may, not a shall," and said an expropriation would require a written statement describing the alleged threat, judicial review and payment of fair market value.
Opponents who testified at the committee hearing said the bill’s definitions and the 50-mile radius around military installations are too broad. Jason Li, who said he is working in the U.S. on an H-1B visa and submitted maps to the committee, said the measure could treat many lawful immigrants and locally owned businesses as "agents of a foreign adversary." He told the panel: "According to this bill ... myself is considered an agent of a foreign adversary, and my family, my wife, my 1 year old daughter, owning a home to live here is considered a threat to public health and security." A resident who also testified described a 50-mile circle around bases as "huge" and said the scale would cover much of the state.
Sen. Hodges and other supporters responded that the bill excludes legal permanent residents and applies only where the Department of War (as the bill frames the authority) documents a specific threat and a judge concurs. "They have to put it in writing what the threat is. They have to go before a judge to prove that there is a threat and then a judge rules on that," she said. Committee members also noted that if property were expropriated the statute requires payment of fair market value and allows appeal.
The bill drew sustained public concern about the definition of "agent of a foreign adversary," the geographic scope of the 50-mile radius and potential consequences for universities and local businesses. Jason Li pointed to university communities and restaurants he said could be affected and urged the committee to amend the definition to avoid sweeping in lawful residents and workers.
The committee had no recorded roll-call vote; the chair moved that SB 200 be reported favorably and, with no objection, the committee reported the bill with amendments.
