Tennessee Senate Bill SB0480

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/29/25
• Engrossed: 3/6/25
• Enrolled: 3/20/25
• Passed: 4/3/25
• Chaptered: 4/8/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 13, Chapter 20; Title 13, Chapter 21 and Title 29, Chapter 17, relative to housing authorities.

Summary

SB0480, the “Tennessee Property Rights Protection Act,” revises Tennessee’s housing authority and eminent domain laws to narrow when property may be taken for urban renewal or redevelopment. The bill replaces the prior “blighted areas” framework with a property-by-property definition of “blighted property,” limiting the term to real property improvements that have been inspected, cited for specified housing, maintenance, or building code violations affecting safety, and not remedied after two notices to cure. It also excludes agricultural land used primarily for production from the definition. The bill gives property owners additional procedural protections by allowing a court to determine whether a proposed taking is truly for blight remediation and resale. It preserves redevelopment tools such as urban renewal area designations, tax increment financing zones, and grant-funded redevelopment plans, while clarifying that housing authorities may still acquire property by negotiated sale and may pay above fair market value for non-blighted property. It also allows housing authorities to hire third-party negotiators at their expense for properties not subject to eminent domain. In state law, SB0480 amends multiple provisions in Title 13 and Title 29 to replace references to “blighted areas” with “blighted property” and to limit eminent domain authority accordingly. The bill specifically narrows the circumstances under which housing authorities and community development agencies may use condemnation in redevelopment projects, while preserving takings for property that is for public use. It also makes conforming changes across the housing authority and condemnation statutes. The overall sentiment appears favorable toward property rights protections, as reflected in the bill’s passage through committee and both chambers. The Judiciary Committee recommended passage, and the bill passed the Senate and House with substantial majorities, indicating broad support for the measure’s core purpose of limiting eminent domain overreach. The bill’s enactment suggests lawmakers viewed it as a balanced reform that protects owners of compliant property while preserving redevelopment authority. The main point of contention is the scope of eminent domain in redevelopment areas. Supporters of the bill emphasize that non-blighted, code-compliant properties should not be swept into redevelopment takings simply because they are located within a broader blighted area. Potential critics would likely be housing authorities and redevelopment advocates concerned that narrowing the definition could make assembling parcels for redevelopment more difficult, though the bill attempts to address that concern by preserving negotiated purchases, urban renewal designations, TIF zones, and grant funding.

Impact

SB0480 amends Tennessee Code Annotated Titles 13 and 29 to replace the broader “blighted areas” standard with a narrower “blighted property” definition for housing authority redevelopment takings. It limits eminent domain use to properties with specified, uncured code violations affecting safety, excludes agricultural land used primarily for production, and adds a judicial review right for owners to challenge whether a taking is truly for blight remediation and resale. The bill also preserves redevelopment tools and allows negotiated purchases and third-party negotiation services, while conforming related statutory references throughout the housing authority and condemnation laws.

Sentiment

The bill’s sentiment is generally supportive and property-rights oriented. It moved through the Senate Judiciary Committee with a strong recommendation and passed both chambers by comfortable margins, suggesting bipartisan acceptance of the goal of narrowing eminent domain authority. The legislative findings and enacted language frame the measure as a protection for private property while still allowing redevelopment in genuinely blighted cases.

Contention

The central controversy is whether redevelopment takings should be based on an area-wide “blighted areas” concept or a stricter parcel-by-parcel standard. Supporters argue the prior definition risked sweeping in well-kept, code-compliant properties and that owners deserve more due process before condemnation. Opponents, likely among housing authorities and redevelopment proponents, may worry that the narrower definition could hinder land assembly for urban renewal projects and make redevelopment more expensive or slower, even though the bill preserves negotiated acquisitions and other redevelopment mechanisms.