Missoula County opposes SB 159, Restrict use of eminent domain, up for second reading on the Senate floor this afternoon. This bill would eliminate the ability for counties to use eminent domain for the construction of trails, paths or sidewalks or for facilities used for hiking, bicycling, equestrian use or other recreational uses.
Missoula County hasn’t historically used eminent domain to construct trails and paths; however, there may come a day when a project will need to use the process to acquire the property required to meet community needs. In many urban counties, non-motorized use is priority, and losing the ability to use eminent domain makes the development of non-motorized facilities more challenging than they already are.
To use eminent domain, the county must prove necessity, so the use of the process doesn’t guarantee the ability to acquire the needed property. There is already a sufficient process in place to protect property owners, and the county also has to compensate the property owners for the necessary property.
Missoula County opposes SB 159, Restrict use of eminent domain, heard in Senate Judiciary this morning. This bill would eliminate the ability for counties to use eminent domain for the construction of trails, paths or sidewalks or for facilities used for hiking, bicycling, equestrian use or other recreational uses.
Missoula and Missoula County haven’t historically used eminent domain to construct trails and paths; however, there may come a day when a project will need to use the process to acquire the property required to meet community needs. In many urban counties, non-motorized use is priority, and losing the ability to use eminent domain makes the development of non-motorized facilities more challenging than they already are.
To use eminent domain, the county must prove necessity, so the use of the process doesn’t guarantee the ability to acquire the needed property. There is already a sufficient process in place to protect property owners, and the county also has to compensate the property owners for the necessary property.
Missoula County opposes SB 159, Restrict use of eminent domain, up for hearing Friday morning in House Judiciary. This bill would eliminate the ability for counties to use eminent domain for the construction of trails, paths or sidewalks or for facilities used for hiking, bicycling, equestrian use or other recreational uses.
Missoula County hasn’t historically used eminent domain to construct trails and paths; however, there may come a day when a project will need to use the process to acquire the property required to meet community needs. In many urban counties, nonmotorized use is a priority, and losing the ability to use eminent domain makes the development of nonmotorized facilities more challenging than it already is.
To use eminent domain, the county must prove necessity, so the use of the process doesn’t guarantee the ability to acquire the needed property. There is already a sufficient process in place to protect property owners, and the county also has to compensate the property owners for the necessary property.
Missoula County opposes SB 159, Restrict use of eminent domain, up on the House floor this afternoon. This bill would eliminate the ability for counties to use eminent domain for the construction of trails, paths or sidewalks or for facilities used for hiking, bicycling, equestrian use or other recreational uses.
Missoula County hasn’t historically used eminent domain to construct trails and paths; however, there may come a day when a project will need to use the process to acquire the property required to meet community needs. In many urban counties, nonmotorized use is a priority, and losing the ability to use eminent domain makes the development of nonmotorized facilities more challenging than it already is.
To use eminent domain, the county must prove necessity, so the use of the process doesn’t guarantee the ability to acquire the needed property. There is already a sufficient process in place to protect property owners, and the county also must compensate property owners for the necessary property.
Senators,
ReplyDeleteMissoula County opposes SB 159, Restrict use of eminent domain, up for second reading on the Senate floor this afternoon. This bill would eliminate the ability for counties to use eminent domain for the construction of trails, paths or sidewalks or for facilities used for hiking, bicycling, equestrian use or other recreational uses.
Missoula County hasn’t historically used eminent domain to construct trails and paths; however, there may come a day when a project will need to use the process to acquire the property required to meet community needs. In many urban counties, non-motorized use is priority, and losing the ability to use eminent domain makes the development of non-motorized facilities more challenging than they already are.
To use eminent domain, the county must prove necessity, so the use of the process doesn’t guarantee the ability to acquire the needed property. There is already a sufficient process in place to protect property owners, and the county also has to compensate the property owners for the necessary property.
Please oppose SB 159.
Senator Olsen,
ReplyDeleteMissoula County opposes SB 159, Restrict use of eminent domain, heard in Senate Judiciary this morning. This bill would eliminate the ability for counties to use eminent domain for the construction of trails, paths or sidewalks or for facilities used for hiking, bicycling, equestrian use or other recreational uses.
Missoula and Missoula County haven’t historically used eminent domain to construct trails and paths; however, there may come a day when a project will need to use the process to acquire the property required to meet community needs. In many urban counties, non-motorized use is priority, and losing the ability to use eminent domain makes the development of non-motorized facilities more challenging than they already are.
To use eminent domain, the county must prove necessity, so the use of the process doesn’t guarantee the ability to acquire the needed property. There is already a sufficient process in place to protect property owners, and the county also has to compensate the property owners for the necessary property.
Please oppose SB 159.
Representatives France, Howell and Zephyr,
ReplyDeleteMissoula County opposes SB 159, Restrict use of eminent domain, up for hearing Friday morning in House Judiciary. This bill would eliminate the ability for counties to use eminent domain for the construction of trails, paths or sidewalks or for facilities used for hiking, bicycling, equestrian use or other recreational uses.
Missoula County hasn’t historically used eminent domain to construct trails and paths; however, there may come a day when a project will need to use the process to acquire the property required to meet community needs. In many urban counties, nonmotorized use is a priority, and losing the ability to use eminent domain makes the development of nonmotorized facilities more challenging than it already is.
To use eminent domain, the county must prove necessity, so the use of the process doesn’t guarantee the ability to acquire the needed property. There is already a sufficient process in place to protect property owners, and the county also has to compensate the property owners for the necessary property.
Please oppose SB 159.
Representatives,
ReplyDeleteMissoula County opposes SB 159, Restrict use of eminent domain, up on the House floor this afternoon. This bill would eliminate the ability for counties to use eminent domain for the construction of trails, paths or sidewalks or for facilities used for hiking, bicycling, equestrian use or other recreational uses.
Missoula County hasn’t historically used eminent domain to construct trails and paths; however, there may come a day when a project will need to use the process to acquire the property required to meet community needs. In many urban counties, nonmotorized use is a priority, and losing the ability to use eminent domain makes the development of nonmotorized facilities more challenging than it already is.
To use eminent domain, the county must prove necessity, so the use of the process doesn’t guarantee the ability to acquire the needed property. There is already a sufficient process in place to protect property owners, and the county also must compensate property owners for the necessary property.
Please oppose SB 159.