Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Eminent Domain Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee rejects bill requiring enhanced airport eminent-domain compensation after split testimony
Summary
House Bill 20-37, which would have required enhanced compensation (including a 150% appraisal multiplier in some cases) for property taken by airport authorities under eminent domain, failed in committee after testimony from neighborhood advocates describing acquisition tactics and airport representatives warning the measure could jeopardize federal funding governed by 49 CFR part 24.
Chairman Hosey described HB 20-37 as a statute to ensure "just compensation" when airport authorities use eminent domain, including measures such as allowing property owners to select an appraiser, requiring at least three estimates and paying 1.5 times appraised value in certain outcomes; the bill also proposed compensation for lost profits, moving costs, increased interest expense and attorney's fees.
Erin Eslinger, a witness who testified in favor, told the committee that airport-related acquisitions had left many properties vacant and devalued and that the bill would ensure the true cost of acquisition is accounted for up front. "When an airport targets the neighborhood, they use tactics to intentionally devalue surrounding property," Eslinger said, urging the committee to support HB 20-37.
Doug Crewelyn, president and CEO of the Tennessee Association of Air Carrier Airports and the Nashville International Airport, opposed the bill, arguing the airports are public entities, federal rules (49 CFR part 24 and FAA advisory circulars) already provide substantial protections, and that paying 150% of fair market value would conflict with federal grant assurances and could risk federal funding. He said airports rarely use eminent domain and that federal guidance governs appraisal, acquisition, relocation assistance and related matters.
After debate and motions, the committee voted and the bill failed on the floor of the subcommittee (2 ayes, 5 nos). Members who supported the bill cited neighborhood harms and constitutional just-compensation concerns; opponents cited federal constraints and the risk of losing FAA funding.
