| Eminent Domain Reforms Passed 1999 through 2006 |
Virginia's reform movement began in 1999 with passage of SJ 271 establishing a Joint,
bi-partisan Committee to study "the fairness of compensation when land is taken by eminent
domain and make recommendations to the General Assembly." The Committee brought in
nationally recognized experts to examine Virginia's Law and held public hearings attended by
over 700 people. Hundreds of property owners testified about abuses they had suffered under
the Virginia's system, urging reform. The experts who examined Virginia's law unanimously
agreed to its inadequacy, finding it among the worst in the nation. In 2000, after a year of study,
the committee recommended a 10 point agenda listing problems identified during the previous
year of hearings and testimony.
After another year of consideration, in 2001 the committee recommended nine changes
necessary to create a fairer system and two that would assure property owners "just
compensation." Seven of the recommendations were killed in the Senate Courts of Justice
Committee in 2001 but 2 aimed at a fairer system would pass both the committee and the
General Assembly. The first applied provisions of the 1972 Federal Uniform Relocation Act to
eminent domain takings in Virginia. The second required condemning authorities to provide
property owners with a copy of the appraisal they used to determine the amount offered to
purchase the property being taken.
Because of relentless lobbying by condemning authorities no Courts Committee has ever
passed the 2 bills recommended as necessary to assure Virginians "just compensation."
These bills required the condemning authority to pay for the property owner's initial appraisal
and required the condemning authority to reimburse the property owner's litigation expenses, if
the property owner proved the condemning authority wrong in court.
The Appraisal Property owners who find themselves in the path of an eminent domain project
must know the value of their property before they begin negotiations with the condemning
authority. This is a non-compensable expense, that can run into the thousands of dollars and,
at minimum, would be essential before negotiating with any experienced, knowledgeable
condemning authority who does this on a regular basis. There are states that allow the property
owner to hire an appraiser of their choice and require the condemning authority to reimburse
the reasonable costs of this appraisal.
Reimbursement of Property Owner Litigation Expenses Today when property owners
receive a low offer from a condemning authority they have 2 options, neither of which is fair.
They can accept the low offer, or challenge the condemning authority in court. However, even if
they win, proving the condemning authority wrong, and are awarded "just compensation" they
lose because their court costs, which include attorney fees of 30% and other miscellaneous
cost, will take up to 50% of any benefit they gained by going to court.
In 2005 the General Assembly passed landmark legislation allowing the judge to order the
condemning authority to reimburse some of the property owner 's litigation expenses. However,
attorney fees and other miscellaneous fees are still not included. Until they are, property
owners will be lucky to keep 50% of any benefit gained by going to court. There is no way this is
fair nor does it meet the Constitutional requirement of "just compensation."
In 17 other states when a property owner proves their offer low and unfair, the condemning
authority is automatically required to reimburse all of the property owner's litigation expenses, or
the court may order the condemning authority to reimburse their court costs, including attorney
fees. More than any other change, this reform would create a fairer system because it would
encourage condemning authority to offer a fair price initially and it would assure "just
compensation" to those who receive a low offer and are forced into court in an attempt to be
paid the "just compensation" required by law.
Our system will not be fair until reimbursement is for the full amount of court costs and all
property owners are reimbursed for their initial appraisal.
bi-partisan Committee to study "the fairness of compensation when land is taken by eminent
domain and make recommendations to the General Assembly." The Committee brought in
nationally recognized experts to examine Virginia's Law and held public hearings attended by
over 700 people. Hundreds of property owners testified about abuses they had suffered under
the Virginia's system, urging reform. The experts who examined Virginia's law unanimously
agreed to its inadequacy, finding it among the worst in the nation. In 2000, after a year of study,
the committee recommended a 10 point agenda listing problems identified during the previous
year of hearings and testimony.
After another year of consideration, in 2001 the committee recommended nine changes
necessary to create a fairer system and two that would assure property owners "just
compensation." Seven of the recommendations were killed in the Senate Courts of Justice
Committee in 2001 but 2 aimed at a fairer system would pass both the committee and the
General Assembly. The first applied provisions of the 1972 Federal Uniform Relocation Act to
eminent domain takings in Virginia. The second required condemning authorities to provide
property owners with a copy of the appraisal they used to determine the amount offered to
purchase the property being taken.
Because of relentless lobbying by condemning authorities no Courts Committee has ever
passed the 2 bills recommended as necessary to assure Virginians "just compensation."
These bills required the condemning authority to pay for the property owner's initial appraisal
and required the condemning authority to reimburse the property owner's litigation expenses, if
the property owner proved the condemning authority wrong in court.
The Appraisal Property owners who find themselves in the path of an eminent domain project
must know the value of their property before they begin negotiations with the condemning
authority. This is a non-compensable expense, that can run into the thousands of dollars and,
at minimum, would be essential before negotiating with any experienced, knowledgeable
condemning authority who does this on a regular basis. There are states that allow the property
owner to hire an appraiser of their choice and require the condemning authority to reimburse
the reasonable costs of this appraisal.
Reimbursement of Property Owner Litigation Expenses Today when property owners
receive a low offer from a condemning authority they have 2 options, neither of which is fair.
They can accept the low offer, or challenge the condemning authority in court. However, even if
they win, proving the condemning authority wrong, and are awarded "just compensation" they
lose because their court costs, which include attorney fees of 30% and other miscellaneous
cost, will take up to 50% of any benefit they gained by going to court.
In 2005 the General Assembly passed landmark legislation allowing the judge to order the
condemning authority to reimburse some of the property owner 's litigation expenses. However,
attorney fees and other miscellaneous fees are still not included. Until they are, property
owners will be lucky to keep 50% of any benefit gained by going to court. There is no way this is
fair nor does it meet the Constitutional requirement of "just compensation."
In 17 other states when a property owner proves their offer low and unfair, the condemning
authority is automatically required to reimburse all of the property owner's litigation expenses, or
the court may order the condemning authority to reimburse their court costs, including attorney
fees. More than any other change, this reform would create a fairer system because it would
encourage condemning authority to offer a fair price initially and it would assure "just
compensation" to those who receive a low offer and are forced into court in an attempt to be
paid the "just compensation" required by law.
Our system will not be fair until reimbursement is for the full amount of court costs and all
property owners are reimbursed for their initial appraisal.
| Review Reforms Passed Between 2000 & 2006 Click Links below |
| 2006 Legislation Enacted: Impacts Title 25: Eminent Domain |
| 2005 Legislation Enacted Impacts Title 25: Eminent Domain |
| 2004 Legislation Enacted Impacts Title 25: Eminent Domain Governing Localities, VDOT |
| 2003 Legislation Enacted Impacts Title 25: Eminent Domain |
| 2002 Legislation Enacted Impacts Title 25: Eminent Domain |
| 2001 Legislation Enacted Impacts Redevelopment Housing Authorities and Public Utilities |
| 2000 Legislation Enacted Impacts Title 25: Eminent Domain |
| The Virginia Property Rights Coalition Dedicated to Reform of Virginia's Eminent Domain Law |
| Web Master Click here to report issues involving the site |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| One of the principal purposes of the Takings Clause is to bar government from forcing some people to bare public burdens, which in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole. A desire to improve the public condition does not justify circumventing the "constitutional way " of paying for what the government wants. If a government wants property for the public good, the public must pay for the property. Chief Justice W. Rehnquist |