Bill description: HB 508 would clarify what is considered “just compensation” when eminent domain is used to take private property from a larger parcel.
Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the US Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in the US Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?
Article I, Section 14 of the Idaho Constitution states, “Private property may be taken for public use, but not until a just compensation, to be ascertained in the manner prescribed by law, shall be paid therefor.”
HB 508 clarifies what is considered “just compensation” when a piece of property taken through eminent domain is part of a larger parcel. Specifically, it clarifies that just compensation includes “the cost of relocating the business and its facilities and improvements within the property remaining after the taking; the cost of relocating or modifying the principal access to the business if reasonably required to maintain safe ingress and egress to the business; and lost business profits resulting from the taking or from the relocation of the business and its facilities and improvements.”
This legislation is a response to case law such as City of McCall v. Seubert (2006), which set a precedent for what establishes business damages in the case of eminent domain—precedent that this bill upholds.