Tracking Virginia’s General Assembly
since 2007.
HB387: Public use; determining whether locality is authorized to acquire property.
Chief Patron
Del.
David Bulova (D-37)
David Bulova
(D-37)
Fairfax, VA
Served: 2006–
Progress
| Introduced | |
| Passed Committee | |
| Passed House | |
| Passed Senate | |
| Signed by Governor | |
| Became Law |
Status
02/12/2008: Failed to Pass in Committee
Summary
Purchase of property by locality. Expands the definition of "public use" for purposes of determining whether a locality is authorized to acquire property.
View Full Text »Video
Votes were cast on this bill on the following dates for which Richmond Sunlight has video: 02/12/2008.
Poll Results
9 votes
Tags
Bill Text
Related Bills
Introduced: December 26, 2007
Status: in subcommittee
: Eminent domain; offer of repurchase to former owner.Status: in subcommittee
Introduced: December 12, 2007
Status: Failed to Pass in Committee
: Constitutional amendment; property tax exemption for certain veterans (first reference).Status: Failed to Pass in Committee
Introduced: December 27, 2007
Status: Failed to Pass in Committee
: Ordinances; adoption of certain after general elections.Status: Failed to Pass in Committee
Introduced: January 02, 2008
Status: signed by governor
: Service of process; mail to address as shown on official tax records.Status: signed by governor
Introduced: January 07, 2008
Status: Failed to Pass in Committee
: Eminent domain; offer of repurchase to former owner.Status: Failed to Pass in Committee

Comments
". . . or any other use as reasonably determined by the locality to be in the public interest."
You have got to be kidding! When has any locality (read local bunch of thugs as opposed to higher level thugs) ever been "reasonable" when it comes to taking someone's property? Can you say: "Kilo v. City of New London?"
Government bureaucrats at all levels believe all property is rightfully theirs so why bother to codify this. Hasn't the Supreme Court already declared open season on private property?
Terry, I appreciate your comment and concern. However, this bill addresses only when a locality can purchase property from a willing seller and does nothing to impact eminent domain. I absolutely supported the measure last year to tighten when a locality can take property by eminent domain. This bill fixes a problem created by the fact that the definition of public use for purchasing property was linked to the definition that was changed for eminent domain.
Why would a locality need to acquire property for reasons outside of 1-219.1?