HB2161 SB2272 / Expands opportunities for local governments to acquire private property for sidewalks, bike lines and pedestrian ways.

This bill amends Tennessee’s eminent domain statute (TCA §29-17-102) to expand what counts as a “public use.” Under the current law, the state may condemn land needed for roads, highways, bridges, or other public-transportation projects. The proposed change explicitly adds associated sidewalks, public greenways, bicycle lanes, pedestrian ways, and any necessary slope development to that list. In practice, this means local governments and transportation agencies could more easily acquire private property for walking and cycling infrastructure by invoking their condemnation power.

Proponents argue that clarifying these additions ensures smooth expansion of multimodal transportation networks. By defining sidewalks and bike lanes as “public use,” the bill aims to remove legal ambiguities that sometimes slow or derail planning. Supporters say it reduces litigation risk and helps communities invest in safer, healthier travel options. Critics warn the broader definition may invite overreach—potentially allowing officials to seize land for projects that some landowners view as ancillary or non-essential.

Conservatives who prize property rights and limited government will see a tension here. On one hand, building safe, public pathways can enhance communities; on the other, any enlargement of eminent domain authority risks infringing on private ownership. From an originalist standpoint, “public use” must remain tethered to truly governmental functions—not become a catch-all for every transportation amenity. This amendment shifts the balance further toward the state’s power to condemn.

Moreover, while states are free under our Tenth Amendment framework to define their own takings law, Tennessee’s framers did not intend a sweeping carte blanche to appropriate land whenever government planners deem it convenient. The addition of greenways and bike lanes—though laudable in concept—should not come at the expense of robust procedural safeguards or the presumption in favor of retaining private property unless absolutely necessary.