H.B. 590                                                 VETOES

Assembly of Maryland heretofore passed authorizing the County to borrow money are
hereby continued to the extent that the powers contained in such Acts have not been
exercised, and nothing-contained in this Act may be construed to impair, in any way, the
validity of any bonds that may have been issued by the County under the authority of any
said Acts, and the validity of the bonds is hereby ratified, confirmed, and approved. This
Act, being necessary for the welfare of the inhabitants of Calvert County, shall be liberally
construed to effect the purposes hereof. All Acts and parts of Acts inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency.

SECTION 10. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act shall take effect
June 1, 1994.

May 26, 1994

The Honorable Casper R. Taylor, Jr.

Speaker of the House of Delegates                                                       

State House

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Dear Mr. Speaker:

In accordance with Article II, Section 17 of the Maryland Constitution, I have today
vetoed House Bill 590.

House Bill 590 would increase the maximum limit of moving expenses that the State may
pay a person who is displaced from a business or farm operation as a result of an eminent
domain proceeding. In future years, the bill would require the Maryland Department of
Transportation to increase or decrease the maximum limits to reflect rates of inflation or
deflation.

As the power of eminent domain has evolved, the federal government has recognized the
need to reimburse owners, not only for the property taken, but also for the expenses
incurred in moving or relocating a business. The federal relocation guidelines are
outlined in the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance Act. Traditionally, State law has
mirrored the federal law, and that system has served both the State and property owners
well.

House Bill 590 would create significant differences between the federal and the State
relocation provisions resulting in inequitable treatment of property owners. For instance,
if the federal government, through eminent domain, took a person's business or farm, the
maximum limit for relocation expenses would be $20,000. However, if the State took the
same property, the person would be entitled to a maximum amount of $23,785.

The State does not have a sound policy reason for creating inequities between property
taken by eminent domain for projects utilizing federal funds as opposed to projects that
are solely State funded. In this instance, the most prudent course of action would be to
have State reimbursement procedures continue to mirror those set forth by the Federal
Uniform Relocation Assistance Act.

For these reasons, I have vetoed House Bill 590.

- 3888 -