Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli appeared before a House subcommittee to address a bill patroned by Del. Johnny Joannou that would provide “definitions for the terms ‘lost profits’ and ‘lost access’ and how to determine the amount of just compensation, which includes lost profits and lost access resulting from the taking, that must be paid for property taken by eminent domain.”
The bill would only take effect if the constitutional amendment on property rights passes the General Assembly this year, and wins voter approval in November.
Cuccinelli was on hand because the bill came with a fiscal impact statement, the mere mention of which is often enough to send legislators scurrying for cover. According to the Department of Planing and Budget, Joanou’s bill could end up costing taxpayers a pretty penny. But they aren’t sure how much, so an example was used instead:
The inclusion of lost access and lost profits when determining just compensation will increase the amounts to be paid to landowners. The amounts paid in a given fiscal year will vary depending on the impacts of the construction projects. In reviewing the projects contained in VDOT’s six-year construction program, the agency was able to specifically identify approximately $108.1 million over a three year period (approximately $36.0 million annually) in additional costs that would have resulted if this legislation had been in effect. The agency is unable to accurately identify the possible future cost that could be incurred if this legislation passes.
Where does the extra money come from?
The agency notes that the Federal Highway Administration does not normally compensate for lost access and lost profits. If the Federal Highway Administration will not authorize the use of federal transportation funds for the compensation, the costs will need to be provided out of the Transportation Trust Fund. In the end, this would reduce funding available to support the construction of new roads and bridges.
A fairly dire scenario — which is exactly why Cuccinelli was on hand to testify on the bill’s behalf:
“What that fiscal impact statement is, is an admission by Virginia’s government that that’s how much we’re taking from citizens in the value of their property and businesses every year,” Cuccinelli told reporters after addressing the committee. “That’s really a pretty sad admission. But that’s the fact, and that’s also why the constitutional amendment’s necessary.”
So yes, passage of the amendment could, and likely will, raise VDOT’s costs. But Cuccinelli also had this to say:
“Those are costs that are already being absorbed today and our agencies have imposed on the citizens of Virginia,” Cuccinelli said. “These costs are now being borne by individual landowners, individual business owners, across Virginia… It’s morally wrong. This fixes that.”
In other words, the bill would eliminate the hidden, and forced, subsidy landowners provide the state and other condemning authorities and groups when those groups take private property.
It’s about time.
The bill passed 5-2.
