USVI Public Records

Document text

DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY AND PROCUREMENT TESTIMONY OF LISA MARIA ALEJANDRO, COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE 36TH LEGISLATURE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS COMMITTEE ON DISASTER RECOVERY, INFRASTRUCTURE, & PLANNING EARLE B. OTTLEY LEGISLATIVE HALL ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS JUNE 16, 2025 BILL NO. 36-0070 DPP Testimony – Bill No. 36-0070 June 16, 2025 (Updated) Testimony of Lisa Maria Alejandro, Commissioner of the Department of Property and Procurement Before The Committee on Disaster Recovery, Infrastructure, and Planning of the 36th Legislature of the Virgin Islands of the United States on June 16, 2025 Good morning Honorable Marise C. James, Chair of the Committee on Disaster 1 Recovery, Infrastructure and Planning, to Vice – Chair, Senate President Milton E. Potter, to 2 Senator Alma Francis Heyliger, Sponsor of Bill No. 36-0070, members of the Committee on 3 Disaster Recovery, Infrastructure and Planning, non-committee members of the 36th Legislature, 4 employees of the Department of Property and Procurement, fellow testifiers, Legislative Staff, 5 and the viewing and listening audience. 6 I am Lisa Maria Alejandro, Commissioner of the Department of Property and 7 Procurement. With me today in Chambers is Chief Legal Counsel Magdalene A. Morancie, Esq. 8 We are here, pursuant to your invitation, to provide testimony on Bill No. 36-0070, “an Act 9 amending title 28 Virgin Islands Code, Chapter 19, by adding Section 423 relating to the failure 10 to use property acquired through the exercise of the power of eminent domain.” 11 The Department understands Bill No. 36-0070 sets out to accomplish four (4) principles: 12 (a) To establish a timeline of twenty-five (25) years during which property acquired through 13 the exercise of eminent domain must be devoted to the public use for which the property 14 was acquired. 15 (b) Create an opportunity for a previous property owner or their successors-in-interest to file 16 legal proceedings in the Superior Court for the return of the property, if the property was 17 not devoted to the public use for which it was acquired within the twenty-five (25) year 18 timeline. 19 (c) Allow for the Superior Court to grant the previous owner’s or their successor – in – 20 interest’s petition once the previous owner returns the compensation it received from the 21 Government for the property. 22 DPP Testimony – Bill No. 36-0070 June 16, 2025 (Updated) (d) Prohibit the Government from instituting further condemnation actions within ten (10) 23 years after the Superior Court has granted the petition to return the property to the 24 previous owner or their successors-in-interest. 25 As the agency with primary responsibilities for the acquisition, management, and 26 disposition of Government real property, the Department of Property and Procurement 27 recognizes the fundamental part the exercise of eminent domain can play in facilitating the 28 Government’s need to acquire private property for public use. The Government primarily 29 acquires property via negotiated purchases, gifts or exchange. The exercise of eminent domain 30 is not a frequently used option and comes as a matter of last resort after failed negotiations to 31 acquire by negotiated purchase or under circumstances when acquisition by negotiated purchase 32 is not otherwise feasible. The power of eminent domain, which applies to both federal and state 33 governments, is a functional part of Government operations and provides the Government with 34 the ability to acquire private property for public use in exchange for just compensation – typically 35 measured by appraisals to determine fair market value. 36 As outlined in Section 411, public uses include all uses authorized by either the United 37 States Congress or the Legislature of the Virgin Islands, buildings and grounds for use by the 38 Government, uses related to public transportations, water reservoirs, irrigation systems and 39 lands for public recreation and significant natural areas to name a few. The Government’s ability 40 to exercise eminent domain is constrained by a public need and the payment of just compensation. 41 The Department appreciates the opportunity to engage in today’s discussion as we 42 recognize the intent of the Bill in seeking to ensure accountability in Government actions and 43 balancing private property rights. As proposed, however, we share concerns about the potential 44 impact on the efficient functioning of government, long-term infrastructure planning, and 45 emerging needs. Please consider the following: 46 (1) A rigid twenty-five (25) -year deadline risks undermining long-term projects and 47 creating unnecessary pressure on agencies to rush development in order to avoid 48 potential reversion claims. Public infrastructure projects often require extensive 49 planning, funding, and environmental review processes that can span decades. For 50 example, Phase 1 of the Veteran’s Drive Improvement Project, celebrated its ribbon 51 DPP Testimony – Bill No. 36-0070 June 16, 2025 (Updated) cutting in 2020, while its initial design dates to the early 1990s. The timeline for 52 completion is unrelated to eminent domain concerns, however, it represents how a 53 project supporting a public purpose can span decades and evolve over time and still 54 come to fruition. Major projects such as new roads, schools, utility expansions, and 55 disaster resilience infrastructure can be delayed due to budget constraints, permitting 56 challenges, adjustments for actual site conditions, and legal disputes. Therefore, the 57 risks inherent in long-term infrastructure projects, may cause time to elapse before 58 the property is devoted to public use. Additionally, this runs the risk of unnecessarily 59 restricting the Government’s ability to divert property to an alternate public use, 60 when that diversion may be more efficient and desirable in changing landscape of 61 emerging needs that may be in the public’s interest. 62 63 (2) The Bill would compel the Government to manage a complex tracking system for all 64 eminent domain acquisitions, constantly reviewing whether each parcel has been 65 “devoted to the public use for which it was acquired” within the twenty-five (25) -year 66 window. Furthermore, it invites a wave of litigation over what qualifies as “public 67 use,” when that use begins, and whether efforts toward the intended use suffice to 68 preserve the Government’s ownership to the property. 69 70 (3) Allowing properties to revert to former owners after twenty-five (25) years, even with 71 reimbursement of the compensation paid, has the potential to expose the Government 72 to significant financial risks. Since the Bill only requires the repayment of the original 73 compensation, the original compensation paid may be far below the current market 74 value, resulting in a public loss. Additionally, the ten (10) -year bar on reacquisition 75 creates a gap during which critical projects could be stalled, jeopardizing public 76 welfare. 77 78 (4) The petition and reversion process could be subject to abuse by well-resourced former 79 owners seeking to reacquire property for personal benefit. This is especially 80 concerning in areas that have increased in value due to surrounding public 81 DPP Testimony – Bill No. 36-0070 June 16, 2025 (Updated) investments, the commencement of development on the subject property or the 82 creation of alternate public use. This could encourage speculation and opportunistic 83 legal challenges, rather than supporting true public interests. 84 85 (5) The Government is already constrained by constitutional and statutory requirements 86 to use eminent domain strictly for public purposes in exchange for just compensation, 87 and property owners have recourse through the courts. Adding this additional layer 88 of restriction could act as a deterrent to future development or infrastructure 89 improvements, due to uncertainty. 90 91 (6) Other jurisdictions have taken the approach concerning a previous owner’s right to 92 re-purchase when the Governmental entity that acquired the property through 93 eminent domain either abandons the public purpose for which the property was 94 acquired and seeks to dispose of the property. In those instances, statutory provisions 95 in places like New Hampshire and Rhode Island provide for a right of first refusal 96 when the Government seeks to dispose of the property. The instant Bill, however, 97 appears to give the previous owner the ability to file this petition upon the decision of 98 the previous owner or their successor-in-interest that the Government has not 99 devoted the property to the underlying public purpose. This has the potential for 100 petitions to be filed while the Government is engaged in developing the property that 101 may not be visible to the previous owner, which can further delay completion of 102 projects. 103 Our collective responsibility to ensure eminent domain is exercised responsibly cannot be 104 understated. As we consider the primary methods of acquiring real property, the continued 105 practice of using the acquired property for a public need, the protections in place to balance public 106 needs with private interests and the Government’s obligation to plan, execute, and sustain long- 107 term public projects, a reversionary right may unduly hinder long-term governmental plans. A 108 more balanced approach, perhaps involving periodic review of unused eminent domain parcels, 109 and a reassessment and reallocation to alternate public uses that may better suit the 110 DPP Testimony – Bill No. 36-0070 June 16, 2025 (Updated) Government’s then current needs. This approach has the potential to conserve time and money 111 by utilizing property the Government already owns to meet evolving needs. 112 Madam Chair, this concludes my prepared testimony. Thank you again for the invitation 113 and the opportunity to be a part of today’s discussion. We remain available to answer any 114 questions the Committee may have. 115