Laserfiche WebLink
1) <br />g) <br />percent at fault to be held responsible <br />for 100 percent of a damage award. <br />Reasonable limits on the amount and <br />circumstances in which statutory <br />attorney fees may be awarded in order <br />to encourage settlement by all parties <br />and decrease the likelihood of <br />litigation. <br />Preserving the essential structure of <br />the local government tort liability caps <br />in Minn. Stat. § 466.04. <br />SD -22. Private Property Rights and <br />Takings <br />Issue: In the wake of the U.S. Supreme <br />Court's 2005 decision Kelo v. City of New <br />London, which upheld the ability of local <br />governments to use eminent domain for <br />economic development purposes, the <br />Legislature enacted significant restrictions <br />on cities' use of eminent domain for <br />economic development and redevelopment, <br />and imposed new compensation and <br />procedural requirements that apply to all <br />condemnation actions, including those for <br />traditional public uses such as roads, parks, <br />and schools. Legislation to control cities' <br />abilities to perform regulatory acts—such as <br />road rights-of-way condemnation, shooting <br />range zoning, and amortization—has also <br />received strong support from legislators. In <br />addition, some legislators would like to <br />authorize businesses to seek inverse <br />condemnation when a governmental entity <br />enters the business market and provides <br />competing goods or services or limits the <br />number of businesses that can operate <br />privately or receive public contracts. <br />Such legislative initiatives threaten a wide <br />array of planning, environmental, historic <br />preservation, and land conservation <br />measures and undermine the fundamental <br />responsibility of cities to protect the public <br />health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. <br />Response: State law must continue to <br />provide cities with the tools needed to <br />balance the rights of private property <br />owners with the interests of the public. <br />The League of Minnesota Cities opposes <br />legislation that diminishes the ability of <br />cities to act in the best interest of the <br />health, safety, and welfare of its citizens; <br />that increases the cost of doing business <br />for the public good; or that creates the <br />possibility of additional lawsuits against <br />cities. <br />Specifically, the League opposes <br />legislation that: <br />a) Allows businesses to seek inverse <br />condemnation when a city provides <br />competing goods or services, or limits <br />the number of private operators. <br />b) Creates an automatic cause of action <br />for damages any time a local <br />regulatory action impacts the use or <br />reduces the value of private property. <br />The League supports legislation that: <br />a) Authorizes cities to use eminent <br />domain for economic development <br />and redevelopment projects that <br />advance a greater public good that <br />benefits the community. <br />b) Empowers local elected officials to <br />determine whether a particular taking <br />of property serves a public purpose. <br />c) Creates incentives to encourage <br />landowners to voluntarily sell their <br />property to the public for <br />development or redevelopment. <br />SD -23. Organized Solid Waste <br />Collection <br />Issue: "Organized collection" refers to a <br />situation where a local unit of government, <br />for any of a variety of reasons, decides that <br />there is a public interest served by limiting <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2016 City Policies Page 13 <br />