Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Eminent Domain topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Subcommittee hears testimony on higher compensation for airport eminent domain takings

Civil Justice Subcommittee · February 18, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

House Bill 20‑37 and amendment would increase compensation and require relocation cost coverage (up to 50 miles) for property owners displaced by airport authorities; witnesses debated whether the change is duplicative of existing Tennessee law and could delay airport projects.

Members heard extended testimony on House Bill 20‑37, the "Tennessee Just Compensation for Property Owners Act," and amendment 013339 that would require a condemnor using eminent domain for airport projects to cover relocation costs up to a 50‑mile radius.

David Seal testified in support as an individual, saying airports can take property and then lease it to private businesses that profit indefinitely. "When airport authorities forcefully take property from land owners, that property can then be leased out to private businesses for private gain," Seal said, and he described meeting local landowners and compiling a list of damages the bill would address.

Cameron Snow, legislative liaison for the Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development, testified for the department and noted current law (as cited in testimony, "TCA 29‑17‑102") restricts eminent domain for private use after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo decision; Snow said the department supports existing statute that land taken by eminent domain should not be used for private benefit. Snow warned that raising mandatory compensation could produce delays and higher costs for airport expansion and said the department was not aware of pending airport‑authority takings in the near term.

After questions on federal oversight, airport ownership and how FAA funding interacts with local acquisition, Representative Travis moved to roll the bill to the next available calendar because a necessary party was not present. The committee agreed to roll the item two weeks so sponsors can return with additional information.