Compare Bills

Primary Sponsor

Last Action

Ref To Com On Rules and Operations of the Senate2025-04-03

Vote Breakdown

Plain Language Summary

This bill clarifies that including real property on a comprehensive transportation plan that is not financially constrained does not require disclosure to buyers or sellers in real estate transactions, nor is it considered a material fact. However, parties still cannot knowingly make false statements about whether a property is included on such a plan.

Arguments in Favor

• •Supporters argue this bill protects property owners and buyers from unnecessary concern about speculative transportation projects that may never be funded or built.
• •They contend that inclusion on a non-financially constrained plan does not indicate an imminent threat to property, and removing this disclosure requirement reduces regulatory burden on real estate transactions while still preventing fraud through the prohibition on knowingly false statements.

Arguments Against

• •Opponents argue that properties included on transportation plans face genuine uncertainty about future development, and buyers and sellers should have this information to make informed decisions about their property values and future use.
• •They contend that removing this disclosure requirement undermines transparency in real estate transactions and could disadvantage buyers who are unaware their property may be targeted for future roads or infrastructure projects.