Eminent Domain Bill, LCO No. 23

You asked for a summary of LCO No. 23, “An Act Concerning Municipal Development Projects.” This bill is scheduled for a Public Hearing before the Judiciary Committee on October 6, 2005.

This bill makes a number of changes to the statutes governing municipal development projects. It requires a:

1. development agency’s plan to (a) be comprehensive in scope and meet an identified public need, (b) include a description of the comprehensive planning process and alternatives considered, and (c) include additional information in a statement of public benefits (§ 2);

2. municipality’s legislative body, before voting on a development plan, to make findings about the agency’s planning, the project’s public needs and public benefits, and the reasonable expectation of achieving the project’s objectives (§3); and

3. municipality’s legislative body, before authorizing use of eminent domain, to find that the property is (a) part of an integrated plan with substantial and significant public uses and benefits, (b) not acquired solely to benefit a private party, and (c) reasonably necessary to carry out the development plan (§ 5).

The bill also requires reevaluation and reapproval of a development plan that has not been substantially modified or reevaluted by the development agency or legislative body for ten years since its approval (§ 6).

By law, a development agency starts a development project by preparing a project plan.

The bill requires this plan to be comprehensive in scope and it must meet an identified public need. It requires the plan to include a description of the comprehensive planning process and alternatives considered to achieve the project’s objectives. It also requires the plan to contain a statement of public benefits including the following information about the project:

1. an estimate of local tax revenue it will generate;

2. any infrastructure improvements including public access, facilities, or use;

3. any blight remediation including environmental remediation;

4. any aesthetic improvements;

5. the project’s role in implementing smart growth principles;

6. the project’s role in creating or sustaining market value;

7. the project’s role in assisting municipal residents in improving their standard of living; and

8. the project’s role in maintaining or enhancing the municipality’s competitiveness.

Current law also requires a statement of the number of jobs anticipated to be created and the number and type of existing housing units in the town and contiguous towns available for new employees. The bill specifies that this is included as part of the statement of public benefits.

1. a description of the (a) land in the project area; (b) condition and use of the land or buildings; (c) types and locations of land uses or building uses proposed; and (d) types and locations of present and proposed streets; sidewalks; and sanitary, utility, and other facilities and the types and locations of other proposed improvements;

2. statements of the present and proposed zoning classification and subdivision status of the project area and adjacent areas;

3. a plan for relocating project-area occupants;

4. a financing plan;

5. an administrative plan;

6. a marketability and proposed land-use study or building use study, if required;

7. appraisal reports and title searches; and

8. findings that the land and buildings in the area will be used principally for industrial or business purposes.

The law, unchanged by the bill, also requires that the project contribute to the economic welfare of the municipality and state and that public action under these provisions be necessary to carry out and administer the project.

The law, unchanged by the bill, also requires that the plan be (1) in accordance with the municipality’s development plan as adopted by its planning commission or a regional planning commission and (2) not adverse to any state-wide planning program objectives of the state or state agencies as coordinated by the Office of Policy and Management.

The bill specifies that the plan cannot be adverse to the State Plan of Conservation and Development.

The law requires a municipality’s legislative body to vote to approve or disapprove a development plan submitted by a development agency. The bill requires the legislative body, before voting, to find that:

1. the development agency conducted a comprehensive planning process including sufficient assessment of alternatives to achieve the project’s objectives,

2. there is clear and convincing evidence of public need for the project,

3. the project’s public benefits outweigh any individual private benefits, and

4. there is a reasonable expectation that the project will achieve its objectives.

By law, the municipality’s legislative body can authorize the development agency to acquire property by eminent domain in the municipality’s name.

The bill prohibits the legislative body from authorizing use of eminent domain unless it finds that the property is:

1. part of an integrated development plan with substantial and significant public uses or benefits,

2. not acquired solely to benefit a purely private party, and

3. reasonably necessary to carry out the development plan.

The bill requires a development agency, planning commission, and legislative body to reevaluate a development plan that has not been substantially modified or reevaluted by the agency or body for ten years since its approval. They can make appropriate modifications. The bill requires the plan to be reapproved by the development agency and the municipality’s legislative body.

The bill also changes the declaration of policy for the municipal development project chapter. Under current law, the policy states that the economic welfare of the state depends on continued growth of industry and business. The bill adds that it depends on promoting economic development as well.

The municipal development project statutes define a “development project” as a project conducted by a municipality to assemble, improve, and dispose of land, buildings, or both principally for industrial or business purposes (CGS § 8-187(4)). The statutes also contain additional procedures and requirements for these projects (chapter 132).

In Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that New London could take privately owned properties for private development under its economic revitalization plan (125 S. Ct. 2655, June 23, 2005, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04slipopinion.html). The Court held that since the plan served a public purpose, it satisfied the U.S. Constitution’s public use requirement, which bans government from taking land for public use without just compensation. Relying on prior decisions, the Court interpreted public use as being the equivalent of “public purpose.” OLR Report 2005-R-0560 analyzes that opinion.

The decision upheld the Connecticut Supreme Court’s 2004 Kelo decision (268 Conn. 1), which found that New London’s actions did not violate either the Connecticut or the U.S. constitutional bans against taking property for public uses without just compensation. OLR Reports 2004-R-0394 and 2004-R-0401 analyze that opinion.

A number of statutes authorize the use of eminent domain (see OLR Reports 2005-R-0578 and 2005-R-0583).


October 3, 2005		2005-R-0735
EMINENT DOMAIN BILL, LCO NO. 23

By: Christopher Reinhart, Senior Attorney