An Act To Clarify Laws Governing Eminent Domain
Maine Legislature, Session 122, LD 1870
Committee: Judiciary
Sponsors: PELLETIER-SIMPSON, FLETCHER, JOY, LINDELL, MAKAS, TURNER, CUMMINGS, DUNN, SCHATZ, BRYANT, HOBBINS

Legislative Document 
No. 1870 
H.P.131O 
House of Representatives, January 3, 2006 
An Act To Clarify Laws Governing Eminent Domain 
Approved for introduction by a majority of the Legislative Council pursuant to Joint Rule 
203. 
Received by the Clerk of the House on December 28, 2005. Referred to the Committee on 
Judiciary pursuant to Joint Rule 308.2 and ordered printed pursuant to Joint Rule 401. 
/!l~ 
1I?77!d£~ 
MILLICENT M. MacFARLAND 
Clerk 
Presented by Representative PELLETIER-SIMPSON of Auburn. 
Cosponsored by Representatives: FLETCHER of Winslow, JOY of Crystal, LINDELL of 
Frankfort, MAKAS of Lewiston, Senator TURNER of Cumberland and 
Representatives: BRYANT of Windham, CUMMINGS of Portland, DUNN of Bangor, 
SCHATZ of Blue Hill, Senators: BRYANT of Oxford, HOBBINS of York. 
Printed on recycled paper 
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows: 
Sec. I. I MRSA §8I6 is enacted to read: 
§816. 
Limitations on eminent domain authority 
1. 
PYlPQses. 
Except as provided in subsections 2 and 3 and 
notwithstanding 
any 
other 
provision 
of 
law, 
the 
State, 
a 
political subdivision of the State and any other entity with 
eminent domain authority may not condemn property: 
A. 
For the purposes of private retail. office, commercial. 
industrial or residential development: 
B. 
Primarily for the enhancement of tax revenue: or 
C. 
For 
transfer 
to 
a 
person, 
nongovernmental 
entity, 
public-private partnership, 
corporation or other business 
entity. 
2. 
BligJl~xc_eRtiQn. 
Subsection 1 does not apply to the 
use of eminent domain by any municipality, housing authority or 
other public entity based upon a finding of blight in an area 
~ed by any redevelopment plan or urban renewal plan pursuant 
to Title 3D-A. chapter 203 or 205. but just compensation. in all 
cases, must continue to be first made to the owner. 
~U-.tili.ties exc_ep.tJon. 
Subsection 1 does not limiL.....tbg 
exercise of eminent domain by or for the benefit of public 
utilities 
or 
other 
entities 
engaged 
in 
the 
generation, 
transmission or distribution of telephone, gas. electric. water. 
sewer or other utility products or services. 
.4. 
Gove.Ulmental p\lrposes not affected. 
Nothing in thi.s 
section may be interpreted to prohibit a municipal or county 
governing body from exercising the power of eminent domain for 
the purpose of constructing, maintaining or operating streets and 
roadways, 
government buildings, schools or park and recreation 
facilities. 
SUMMARY 
This bill is in response to the United States Supreme Court 
decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 73 USLW 4552 (2005). 
The 
bill prohibits the use of eminent domain authority for purposes 
of private retail, office, commercial, industrial or residential 
.,. 
development; primarily for the enhancement of tax revenue; or for 
transfer to 
a 
person, 
nongovernmental 
entity, 
public-private 
partnership, 
corporation 
or 
other 
business 
entity. 
The 
restriction does not apply to an area upon a finding of blight 
under 
current 
law 
governing 
urban 
development 
and 
community 
development. 
The restriction does not apply to utilities .