| Richmond Times Dispatch Tuesday, February 22, Eminent domain bills advance Landowners would be more likely to get market value BY GREG EDWARDS |
The state Senate committee endorsed a bill yesterday intended to give landowners
more clout when faced with an excessively low purchase offer from a utility or
government agency seeking to condemn land.
But the measure endorsed by the Senate Courts of Justice Committee was weaker than
a bill that passed the House of Delegates 96-1 this month.
A second measure, which, like the first, was sought by the Virginia Farm Bureau
Federation, also came out of the committee weaker than it went in. It is intended to help
those whose property had been damaged by inspectors or surveyors during a
condemnation process.
"We still have a long way to go," an unhappy Farm Bureau lobbyist Susan Rubin said
after the committee votes.
The panel heard the personal stories of property owners who spent all day in Richmond
waiting to testify on the condemnation legislation.
Former dairy farmer Faron Stull of Allegheny County told the committee that a
condemnation by the Virginia Department of Transportation had put the farm run by him
and his brother out of business. VDOT had offered them $75,000 for their land, an
amount he called "grossly inadequate," and they eventually were awarded $417,000 in
court, Stull said. One third of the award went for attorney fees and expert witnesses.
One of the Farm Bureau bills, sponsored by Del. Terrie L. Suit, R-Virginia Beach, would
require those seeking to condemn land for a public purpose to offer the landowner the
full, fair, appraised value of the property.
But the Senate committee amended a provision in the measure to give judges
discretion over awarding court costs to landowner, including the cost of up to three
expert witnesses. Suit's bill as it passed the House would have required courts to
award the court costs, excluding attorney fees, if landowners proved in court that their
property was worth 30 percent more than they were offered for it. It also had no limit on
the number of experts needed to prove a landowner's case.
Representatives of VDOT, some utilities and local governments spoke against the
legislation, warning that it could costs taxpayers money.
Sen. Thomas K. Norment Jr., R-James City, suggested the changes to the bill after
efforts to pass it in its original form and to further weaken it both failed on tied
committee votes.
Suit said having the committee approve the two bills with changes was better than not
getting the bill out of committee at all.
A second bill would have required courts to award court costs, including expert and
attorney fees, to those whose property had been damaged during a survey or inspection.
Before approving the measure, however, the committee endorsed an amendment by
Sen. Frederick M. Quayle, R-Chesapeake, that would require a landowner to prove the
damaged had been done maliciously, willfully or recklessly.
Any ideas? Staff writer Greg Edwards can be reached at 804-649-6390 or
edwards@timesdispatch.com
more clout when faced with an excessively low purchase offer from a utility or
government agency seeking to condemn land.
But the measure endorsed by the Senate Courts of Justice Committee was weaker than
a bill that passed the House of Delegates 96-1 this month.
A second measure, which, like the first, was sought by the Virginia Farm Bureau
Federation, also came out of the committee weaker than it went in. It is intended to help
those whose property had been damaged by inspectors or surveyors during a
condemnation process.
"We still have a long way to go," an unhappy Farm Bureau lobbyist Susan Rubin said
after the committee votes.
The panel heard the personal stories of property owners who spent all day in Richmond
waiting to testify on the condemnation legislation.
Former dairy farmer Faron Stull of Allegheny County told the committee that a
condemnation by the Virginia Department of Transportation had put the farm run by him
and his brother out of business. VDOT had offered them $75,000 for their land, an
amount he called "grossly inadequate," and they eventually were awarded $417,000 in
court, Stull said. One third of the award went for attorney fees and expert witnesses.
One of the Farm Bureau bills, sponsored by Del. Terrie L. Suit, R-Virginia Beach, would
require those seeking to condemn land for a public purpose to offer the landowner the
full, fair, appraised value of the property.
But the Senate committee amended a provision in the measure to give judges
discretion over awarding court costs to landowner, including the cost of up to three
expert witnesses. Suit's bill as it passed the House would have required courts to
award the court costs, excluding attorney fees, if landowners proved in court that their
property was worth 30 percent more than they were offered for it. It also had no limit on
the number of experts needed to prove a landowner's case.
Representatives of VDOT, some utilities and local governments spoke against the
legislation, warning that it could costs taxpayers money.
Sen. Thomas K. Norment Jr., R-James City, suggested the changes to the bill after
efforts to pass it in its original form and to further weaken it both failed on tied
committee votes.
Suit said having the committee approve the two bills with changes was better than not
getting the bill out of committee at all.
A second bill would have required courts to award court costs, including expert and
attorney fees, to those whose property had been damaged during a survey or inspection.
Before approving the measure, however, the committee endorsed an amendment by
Sen. Frederick M. Quayle, R-Chesapeake, that would require a landowner to prove the
damaged had been done maliciously, willfully or recklessly.
Any ideas? Staff writer Greg Edwards can be reached at 804-649-6390 or
edwards@timesdispatch.com
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |