Comments on: More on who’s master of their eminent domain? http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2006/01/more_on_whos_master_of_their_e.html Indiana Barrister is the source for local Indianapolis and Indiana news, politics and commentary. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:15:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Abdul http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2006/01/more_on_whos_master_of_their_e.html/comment-page-1#comment-42 Abdul Tue, 10 Jan 2006 01:04:49 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2006/01/more_on_whos_master_of_their_eminent_domain.html#comment-42 There were some changes from the original draft, including the retroactive date. I've had a busy day and will have to double check for the others. There were some changes from the original draft, including the retroactive date. I’ve had a busy day and will have to double check for the others.

]]> By: Doug http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2006/01/more_on_whos_master_of_their_e.html/comment-page-1#comment-41 Doug Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:13:24 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2006/01/more_on_whos_master_of_their_eminent_domain.html#comment-41 Any idea if the bill was amended at all? In particular, I figured the bill could stand to have "private person" defined for purposes of triggering the chapter that allows only run down properties to be condemned for benefit of private persons, and the owners of the run down property paid 125% - 150% if the land is agricultural or owner-occupied. As introduced, I think the bill might prevent investor owned utilities and the like from exercising eminent domain to get right of way. Maybe that's the intent, but, if so, it seems like a radical departure from prior practice. Any idea if the bill was amended at all? In particular, I figured the bill could stand to have “private person” defined for purposes of triggering the chapter that allows only run down properties to be condemned for benefit of private persons, and the owners of the run down property paid 125% – 150% if the land is agricultural or owner-occupied.

As introduced, I think the bill might prevent investor owned utilities and the like from exercising eminent domain to get right of way. Maybe that’s the intent, but, if so, it seems like a radical departure from prior practice.

]]>