HB 1622 revises Missouri’s eminent domain law by repealing and replacing section 523.039, which governs how “just compensation” is calculated when property is condemned. The bill keeps fair market value as the baseline measure, but adds higher compensation formulas in certain situations. For homestead takings, compensation would be 125% of fair market value. For property owned within the same family for 50 or more years and taken in a way that prevents substantially the same use, compensation would include both fair market value and an added “heritage value.” The bill also defines how family ownership can be proven, including ownership through children, grandchildren, siblings, nieces, nephews, marriage, or adoption, and it sets a majority-ownership test when the property is held by an entity.
The bill further creates a special rule for agricultural and horticultural property. If such property is taken and the taking prevents substantially the same use, compensation would equal fair market value plus 1% for each year the property has been owned by the same family. In a separate provision, agricultural or horticultural property condemned by an electrical corporation for construction of an electric plant requiring a certificate of convenience and necessity would be compensated at 150% of fair market value, unless the property has been in the same family for 51 or more years, in which case the family-ownership formula applies instead. The bill also states that this electrical-corporation provision does not apply to certain applications filed before August 28, 2022.
The bill’s impact would be to increase compensation available to owners of condemned homesteads, long-held family property, and agricultural or horticultural land, especially where the taking disrupts continued use of the property. It would affect eminent domain proceedings in Missouri and could raise acquisition costs for condemning authorities, including electrical corporations in specified circumstances. The measure would also create new statutory standards for proving family ownership and for calculating heritage-based compensation.
Overall sentiment appears supportive of stronger property-owner protections, based on the bill’s focus and caption, though no committee testimony or recorded votes were provided. The bill was referred to the Emerging Issues Committee, and the text suggests an intent to address concerns about the loss of family farms, inherited land, and homesteads through condemnation. No direct opposition is documented in the provided materials, but the main likely point of contention is the higher compensation burden on public or utility condemning authorities versus the expanded protections for landowners.
Notable points of contention would likely center on the new “heritage value” concept, the 50-year family ownership threshold, and the special 150% valuation rule for utility condemnations of agricultural or horticultural property. Supporters would likely view these provisions as fair recognition of generational ownership and non-market losses, while critics may argue they complicate eminent domain proceedings and increase costs for infrastructure and utility projects.
HB 1622 would amend Missouri’s eminent domain compensation statute, section 523.039, by adding higher compensation formulas for homesteads, long-held family property, and agricultural or horticultural property. It would affect condemning authorities, property owners, and courts by changing how just compensation is calculated and by establishing new evidentiary rules for proving family ownership and heritage-based claims.
The bill appears to have a generally pro-property-owner and pro-farm-family sentiment, with an emphasis on protecting homesteads, inherited land, and agricultural property from undervalued condemnation. No committee debate or vote record was provided, so there is no documented opposition or bipartisan split in the materials. Based on the text alone, the measure seems designed to respond to concerns about eminent domain fairness and the preservation of family land.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s expanded compensation formulas and the new “heritage value” and family-ownership provisions. Supporters would likely argue that these changes better compensate owners for the unique loss of long-held family and farm property, while opponents may object that the bill raises costs for utilities and other condemning entities, creates subjective valuation standards, and could make eminent domain proceedings more complex and expensive.