A proposed national law that would allow property owners to file property takings cases in federal courts passed the U.S. House of Representatives nearly two weeks ago, with a favorable vote by local U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland.

Critics of the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2006 say that if passed it ultimately would lead to cities and counties losing their zoning powers, including the ability to enforce buffer restrictions.

But Westmoreland’s office says that’s not the case, and the law simply makes it easier for property owners to bypass state courts on the matter if they choose to.

“This protects people’s rights to just compensation for their property,” said Westmoreland Press Secretary Brian Robinson.

The bill has not been taken up by the U.S. Senate yet, and there is speculation it may not make it this year since the Senate has adjourned until November for action after the election.

Historically, federal courts have ceded property takings decisions to the jurisdiction of state courts. But critics say the new law allows property owners to go directly to federal courts with such cases when they relate to cases of whether the zoning constitutes the government’s “taking” of the property.

The law could lead to cities losing their zoning powers, according to Fayetteville Mayor Ken Steele, because taxpayers could not afford to pay property owners for required buffers and the like.

“It undermines our ability to zone our cities for the protection of homeowners and taxpayers,” said Steele, who sits on the Georgia Municipal Association’s legislative policy council.

For example, the city of Fayetteville requires a 75-foot buffer between its intense commercial C-3 zoning and any adjoining residential property, Steele noted. Under this new proposed federal law, the city would have to pay either the commercial or residential land owner for that 75-foot strip of land because the land owner couldn’t use it as he or she wanted, he said.

A Westmoreland spokesman disagrees that the law would make significant changes. The law will not affect zoning matters much, Robinson said, as it focuses on issues where government has taken property.

The law is part of the fallout from a controversial Supreme Court ruling last year that approved a city’s taking of parcels that were ultimately turned over to a private developer for a new project, Robinson noted.

Former Peachtree City Mayor Steve Brown said state courts will take into account a city’s land use plan and other local ordinances on certain takings cases, but he predicts federal courts will not do so.

“They’ll only be worried about the Constitution,” Brown said. He worries the law will ultimately lead to developers challenging zoning ordinances by claiming the zoning is a “taking” by the local government.

The Georgia Municipal Association has indicated that the law, if approved, would also add more litigation expenses on cities.

Steele said the law also flies in the face of current Supreme Court rulings that dictate zoning cases be heard first in local and state courts.

“People in the local community, elected officials and local building associations know a lot more about our community than the federal government,” Steele said, adding that he thinks the law is unconstitutional and he hopes it won’t be voted on by the U.S. Senate.

Steele said he would be contacting both Georgia senators Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss to let them know of the potential harm of the bill.

As for Westmoreland’s vote in favor of the bill, Steele replied: “I fully support our representative, but we do not agree on all issues.”

Robinson noted that the bill was not challenged by either a Democrat or a Republican when it was passed by the judiciary committee. Though some critics have said the bill would only benefit large property owners and developers, Robinson noted that it could make litigation less expensive in such cases by avoiding a trial at the state court level and then a resulting appeal at the federal level.