By Lindsay Kastner

Property owners deserve more protection from the government's power to take their land. At least that's what some lawmakers seem to be saying as several bills on the subject make their way through the General Assembly.

Whether the proposals will survive the legislative process and be signed into law remains to be seen. But the for moment, it looks as though landowners may have the Legislature on their side.

The bills under consideration aim to make eminent domain statutes more fair, said Sen. Phillip P. Puckett, D-Tazewell. "It's trying to balance out that playing field," he said.

Eminent domain is the power of the government to take or purchase private property for public use.

The present law favors the government, Puckett said, because it limits the amount of compensation landowners can receive for their property. Current law also makes landowners cover their own court costs during condemnation litigation, even if the court rules in their favor.

"There is a need to update our eminent domain statute," Puckett said. Property owners in his district may be affected by eminent domain because the American Electric Power wants to run a 765,000-volt power line through the area.

Land can be taken for use by a utility company if the State Corporation Commission approves the project. That’s likely to happen, said Ron Poff, supervisor of transmission engineering for American Electric Power.

Puckett, who opposes the plans for the line, said the eminent domain proposals would greatly benefit landholders affected by such projects. "The citizens certainly would have an opportunity to secure a more suitable and fair judgment," he said.

Among other changes, legislators have proposed:

• Lifting the state’s $10,000 cap on payments for business relocation expenses.

• Requiring government agencies and utilities to offer to buy an entire piece of property if purchasing only part of the property would leave the owner with an "uneconomic remnant."

One eminent domain bill suggested allowing courts to require the agencies or utilities to pay land owners’ litigation expenses in certain cases. That bill, however, was effectively killed last week.

"I would support these bills," Puckett said, "if we could ever get them out of committee."

Sen. Madison E. Marye, D-Shawsville, is patron of several eminent domain bills this session, among them a bill that would change the way that condemnation suits are decided.

Presently, condemnation suits are heard by a panel of commissioners chosen from a special pool of citizens. A majority of the commissioners must own land.

Under Marye's proposal, condemnation suits would be heard by jurors chosen from the regular jury pool, not a special pool primarily of landowners.

His bill also allows tenants with 12-month or longer leases to participate in eminent domain cases just as an owner does. And the proposal requires condemnors to provide copies of their appraisals when they offer to purchase property.

Jody Smith, Marye's legislative assistant, said that while there has been no organized opposition to the bill, some constituents have called with concerns.

Most of the callers are worried about lifting the requirement that condemnation suits be decided by a panel dominated by landowners. Removing this requirement puts landowners at a disadvantage, some constituents have told Marye’s office.

The senator's intentions, Smith said, were to make the statutes fairer and more constitutionally sound.

The bill has already passed the Senate. "What happens in the House could be a different issue," Smith said.

Poff said his company doesn’t see proposed changes in eminent domain law as much of a threat. "I see very little effect because historically our company has been able to successfully negotiate about 97 percent of the right of way or easement we have needed," he said.

In those rare instances when eminent domain is used, Poff said, it’s because it’s unclear who owns the land. Especially in rural areas, he said, land often passes from parent to child but ownership may not be formally transferred. "Oftentimes we have to use the power of eminent domain because of defective title."

Puckett said he hopes his constituents will be protected if the State Corporation Commission allows American Electric Power to build its power line. Puckett said he opposes the line because he thinks it is unnecessary and that it is intended primarily to supply power to other areas.

Poff disagrees. "We feel like we have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the compelling need for this project."

If the line is built, Puckett has suggested that affected landowners receive royalties from American Electric Power's subsequent profits.

"I think that's a way of compensating land owners fairly," he said, comparing it to royalties for coal extraction that some landowners in Southwestern Virginia receive. Puckett acknowledges that his royalties idea isn’t likely to win state approval.

Regardless of what happens with the American Electric Power line, Puckett said Virginia's eminent domain laws should be changed. Landowners, he said, should be "a part of the process and not a victim of the process."