Laserfiche WebLink
e) Preserving changes to Minnesota's <br />joint and several liability laws that <br />require a municipality to be at least 50 <br />percent at fault to be held responsible <br />for 100 percent of a damage award. <br />f) 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 />g) <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, 545 U.S. 469, which upheld the <br />ability of local governments to use eminent <br />domain for economic development <br />purposes, the Legislature enacted significant <br />restrictions on cities' use of eminent domain <br />for economic development and <br />redevelopment, and imposed new <br />compensation and procedural requirements <br />that apply to all condemnation actions, <br />including those for traditional public uses <br />such as roads, parks, and schools. <br />Legislation to control cities' abilities to <br />perform regulatory acts —such as road <br />rights -of -way condemnation, shooting range <br />zoning, and amortization —has also received <br />strong support from legislators. In addition, <br />some legislators would like to authorize <br />businesses to seek inverse condemnation <br />when a governmental entity enters the <br />business market and provides competing <br />goods or services or limits the number of <br />businesses that can operate privately or <br />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 />In 2006, the Legislature enacted Minn. Stat. <br />§ 117.031, a statute related to attorney fees <br />in the eminent domain process. The <br />structure of the statute has resulted in <br />attorney fee awards in eminent domain <br />actions that have no relationship to the <br />outcome of the case, serve only to encourage <br />litigation, and shift limited public funding <br />away from infrastructure projects. <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 />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2018 City Policies Page 13 <br />