| State Fact Sheets
Eminent Domain
VFBF Policy
We believe that the Eminent Domain laws in Virginia should include the following:
 |
Where at all possible, public lands or existing corridors should be used to avoid the taking of private property in order to minimize the disruption to home, family, and business. |
|
Compensation is based on fair market value of property, taking into account factors that decrease fair market value of residual property including but not limited to magnetic fields, visual blight, loss of revenue due to decreased crop yields, and unharvestable or damaged commodities. |
|
Compensation for a taking should be extended to include the decreased fair market value of adversely affected property taking into account but not limited to magnetic fields and visual blight. |
|
All funds to be paid for a taking must be available at the time the offer is made. |
|
100 percent of all relocation expenses paid. |
|
Individuals should be able to recoup legal expenses in condemnation cases where the landowner’s valuations are proven to be greater than the original offer by the condemning authority. |
|
Protect valuable productive farmland when less productive land is available. |
|
Private property is not for public use if it is taken for transfer to another private entity for purposes of economic development. |
|
Civil penalties for condemners or their agents who misrepresent themselves or operate in a manner that ignores existing law. |
Background
With the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain, the rights of owners of private property have become an issue that has sparked state and national attention and discussion. In Kelo v. The City of New London, Connecticut decision, the "Public Use" clause was replaced with a broader "Public Purpose" clause. Therefore, land could be condemned for economic benefit by a governmental entity and transferred to a nongovernmental entity. Virginia’s statutory law needs to be amended to clarify and strictly define public use and/or public necessity and not broaden its meaning like in the authority given in Connecticut. In addition, the process needs to be started to enact a constitutional amendment giving these same protections.
The rights of property owners continue to be violated by those who both legitimately and illegitimately claim the authority of eminent domain. Too often individuals find that a government agency or private entity has targeted their property for condemnation. Increasingly, we are hearing from farmers anecdotal cases of widespread abuse. While the abuses vary widely, there seems to be one constant. The entities committing the abuses are by local and state government and multimillion dollar corporations that find it more expedient to complete their projects by any means necessary, regardless of whether or not existing law is broken.
The individual that finds himself in this situation is faced with having to accept the condemnation or take the condemning authority to court. This is a costly undertaking, and not within the means of many victims. Condemning authorities count on this.
Property owners facing condemnation received some relief from changes to the eminent domain laws by the 2005 General Assembly. One requires more specific notification provisions prior to the condemnor entering property under consideration for eminent domain as well as clarifying the property owners’ recourse if damage occurs during such entry. However, these changes did not apply to all entities with condemning authority. Additional language in other statutory sections is needed to make sure all entities have to comply with these provisions. In addition, the issue of compensation for damages that result to adjacent property by condemnors or their agents while conducting maintenance on their works or improvements needs to be resolved.
A second change clarified when property owners must vacate the property during condemnation as well as allowing the court to award property owners certain fees if the condemning authority has underestimated the offer for purchase by 30 percent or greater. This was a positive step forward for property owners.
In addition to the changes mentioned above, Virginia needs to update its compensation definitions to include 100 percent of relocation expenses as well as revisiting the methods for determining full compensation to include business losses.
Reasons for Position
|
Agriculture is often viewed as “open space and the path of least resistance” for condemnation. |
|
The number of violations of property owners’ rights continues to grow, despite existing laws in the Code of Virginia. |
|
Agricultural land is rarely valued for condemnation purposes at the real fair market price of the land. |
|
The condemnation process can put one out of business for years while going through the process with no compensation to the property owner for business losses as a result. |
|
Full compensation for business relocation expenses is not provided. |
|
Owners of residual property after condemnation face years of potential damage to their property as a result of condemnors or their agents conducting maintenance on their works or improvements with no specific recourse for the property owner. |
|
