NC House committee votes to ban foreign land ownership

On Tuesday, the House Committee on Homeland Security and Military and Veterans Affairs voted to give a favorable report on SB 394, Prohibit Foreign Ownership of NC Land, and to pass the bill to the House Rules Committee.

The bill prohibits foreign adversaries, as specified in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, from owning, leasing, or holding agricultural land or land within a 50-mile radius of a military installation.

“This bill recognizes that food security is national security and is a state effort to protect our military bases by prohibiting land acquisition by adversarial nations,” said bill sponsor Sen. Bob Brinson, R-Craven. “It includes definitions for agricultural lands, includes property within 50 miles of military installations, and includes penalties for enforcement.”

Brinson explained the bill and PCS to the committee. The original version of SB 394, as well as the House version HB 133, passed the Senate unanimously. Lawmakers have been working together to make a single PCS version of the bill. 

During committee discussion, Brinson said his constituents told him the legislation was “long overdue.” He said concerns about the bill had been addressed with the NC Bar Association, including its real estate division, along with other state agencies and the University of North Carolina School of Government. Brinson also said he knew of no opposition to the bill.

Under federal law, foreign companies and individuals owning agricultural land are already required to register on the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) website. There are 39 properties currently registered with the USDA in the state that adversaries own; of those, 36 are owned by Smithfield Foods.  Originally, this bill covered all individual citizens of those adversarial companies, but it has been reduced to just companies.  Under this legislation, the NC Secretary of State has one year to submit a report to the NC Attorney General, with follow-up reports every six months thereafter. 

MILITARY BASE REACTION TIME

One of the major points of debate on this bill is the size of the radius around military bases. 

“The intent is to give military bases more reaction time,” said Brinson. “While military bases can detect well beyond the fenceline, they do not have jurisdiction outside the fenceline. They have no ability to protect themselves from espionage and surveillance, but must rely on local and state law enforcement. Local and state law enforcement do not have detection systems around the bases that I know of.” 

Regarding the radius, Brinson explained that a commercial drone with a camera payload, cruising at 96 miles per hour, takes only three minutes and 16 seconds to cover five statute miles. However, it takes 32 minutes to cover 50 statute miles. 

Rep. Potts, R-Davidson, raised concerns about where the 50-mile radius would begin. 

Brinson explained that the bill includes a provision stating that the NC Real Estate Commission, in conjunction with the NC Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA), will be responsible for drawing the maps. The real estate commission will draw the maps using data received from the DMVA. The maps must be created by Dec 1 and then updated one year after implementation. 

Rep. Julie Von Haefen, D-Wake, raised several concerns with the bill she had prepared to introduce as amendments, but she was denied. Her first concern was regarding the 50-mile radius, arguing that it was “a massive hurdle” to business and economic development. She indicated that other states that have passed similar bills, including Florida, Ohio, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, and Alabama, have a 10-mile radius. Her amendment would have split the difference, proposing a 25-mile radius.  

The size of the radius and its potential to inhibit economic development were major points of contention back in May, when the Senate Judiciary Committee discussed a PCS to HB 133, the companion bill to SB 394. 

Von Haefen also objected to the blocking of leasing rights. She argued that other states with similar legislation do not block leasing rights, and that her amendment would have removed the bill’s provision that does so. 

She also had concerns about the bill’s ambiguity and indicated that one of her amendments would have clarified certain areas regarding agricultural land near military installations. 

Von Haefen stated that she was told the amendments would be allowed to run on the House floor, and that she believes that there is “a lot more work to be done” on the bill. 

material and manpower

Rep. Wyatt Gable, R-Onslow, inquired whether there is a caveat allowing countries to be added to the list of adversaries prohibited from ownership if that becomes necessary in the future. Brinson explained that the bill is tied to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, which are updated by the federal government, eliminating the need to amend the list. 

Bill Tool, senior deputy of theNC Department of Secretary of State, made a request of the committee.

“We are here to say that we are here to support missions as you give them to us; missions require material and manpower, and in this case, we are very concerned that the obligation to stand up and maintain a registry is coming without either,” said Tool. “We need IT support, we need servers, that sort of thing. Right now, at the Department of State, we have a number of missions that we are having great difficulty fulfilling because we do not have enough of either. So I only ask that as you deploy to us a mission, that you deploy to use the material and manpower necessary to meet that mission as you give it to us.”

“NC House committee votes to ban foreign land ownership” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.