AN ACT relating to eminent domain.
HB353 revises Kentucky’s eminent domain and land bank laws as they relate to blighted and abandoned property. The bill updates definitions of “abandoned property” and “blighted property,” narrows and modernizes the criteria local governments must use to identify such properties, and requires notice and certification steps before a local government may begin condemnation proceedings. It also authorizes commissions or alternative government entities to seek administrative warrants to inspect structures when access is denied and there is probable cause of code violations, and it standardizes how local governments may use vacant property review commissions or alternative entities in these processes.
The bill also amends several related statutes governing land banks, abandoned urban property taxes, tax delinquency diversion programs, and eminent domain procedures. It clarifies that local governments exercising these powers must follow KRS 99.700 to 99.730, allows additional local procedures only if they do not reduce property-owner protections, and revises compensation and court procedures in condemnation cases involving blighted or abandoned property. Finally, it amends Kentucky’s general eminent domain law to define “public use” to include acquisition and transfer of blighted or abandoned property under Chapter 99, while reaffirming that property may not be condemned for transfer to a private owner solely for general economic development benefits such as increased tax revenue or jobs.
HB353 would significantly affect Kentucky local governments, land bank authorities, property valuation administrators, code enforcement bodies, and property owners of vacant, neglected, or tax-delinquent structures. It would reshape the statutory framework for identifying blight, inspecting properties, certifying them for condemnation, and calculating compensation in eminent domain cases tied to nuisance or redevelopment efforts. The bill also expands and clarifies the role of vacant property review commissions or alternative government entities in tax delinquency diversion programs and abandoned property taxation, while tightening procedural requirements before a taking can occur.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears aimed at strengthening local tools to address blight, abandoned housing, and neighborhood deterioration, while also adding procedural safeguards and clearer standards for property owners. The overall tone of the bill is reform-oriented and redevelopment-focused, with an emphasis on both enforcement and due process.
The main points of potential contention are the expanded authority for local governments to inspect, certify, and condemn blighted or abandoned property, and the bill’s more detailed standards for what qualifies as blight or abandonment. Property-rights concerns may arise from the use of eminent domain, administrative warrants, and tax-related penalties, especially where owners dispute code violations or the cost-of-repair threshold. At the same time, local governments and redevelopment advocates may support the bill’s clearer procedures and stronger tools for addressing long-term vacancy, while opponents may focus on whether the definitions are too broad or whether the condemnation process could still be used too aggressively.