House committee hears weeks of testimony on property-rights bill that critics say would freeze local planning

Lawmakers and dozens of witnesses spent the Judiciary Committee’s session debating House Bill 18-37, a proposal that would create a process for property owners to demand compensation or restoration when a local land-use regulation reduces a property's fair-market value.

Sponsor and supporters said the bill enshrines fairness by requiring governments to compensate owners or restore permitted uses when regulation effectively takes value. "If government action takes value, the government bears the cost, not the individual property owner," the sponsor said during the hearing.

Opponents — including the Southern Environmental Law Center, planning professionals and local-government advocates — said the measure would undermine routine zoning updates, restrict local officials’ ability to manage growth and create a predictable onslaught of compensation claims that would chill planning.

George Nolan, an attorney and farmer with the Southern Environmental Law Center, warned that local governments would be hesitant to update rules that address traffic, flooding or farmland protection because such changes could trigger costly claims. "This legislation authorizes landowners to sue local governments anytime counties or cities adopt land use laws affecting property values," Nolan said.

Micah Wood, president of the Tennessee chapter of the American Planning Association, told the committee the bill would function as a near-immediate freeze on growth-management tools and that communities facing farmland loss and development pressures need flexibility to adopt new land-use protections.

Proponents said the bill provides written-demand requirements and options short of litigation, including waivers or negotiated compensation, and that it would not remove standard health, safety or building regulations.

The committee heard more than an hour of testimony for and against the bill and ran out of time. The chair adjourned at the meeting's scheduled end and rolled remaining bills to next week's calendar; no final committee vote on HB 18-37 was recorded in this session.