Overview
Title
To require the Administrator of General Services to sell certain property related to United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 9591 is a rule that says the government has to sell some land related to a prison in Leavenworth, Kansas, within two years, making sure it's sold at a fair price and not to people from other countries. The money from selling this land will go into a special bank account to be used later by the government.
Summary AI
H.R. 9591 instructs the Administrator of General Services to sell certain property associated with the United States Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas, located in Missouri. The property must be sold within two years, at fair market value, and is required to satisfy specific conditions, such as performing deferred maintenance and enabling a thorough survey to determine the property's exact size and structures. Proceeds from the sale are to be deposited into a federal fund, and any further use of these funds will require future appropriations. The bill also prohibits the sale of the property to any foreign entities or individuals.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
House Bill 9591, introduced by Representative Graves of Missouri, proposes a mandate for the Administrator of General Services to sell certain properties associated with the United States Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas. The sale pertains specifically to properties located in Missouri, in connection with the penitentiary. The bill outlines requirements for the sale to occur at fair market value, within a two-year timeline from enactment, and necessitates addressing maintenance issues prior to sale. Additionally, it prohibits sales to foreign entities and specifies the use of net proceeds.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several issues arise from the provisions of this bill. First, the requirement that the sale occurs at "fair market value" and "highest and best use" could complicate the sale process by potentially constraining the pool of eligible buyers or slowing negotiations, as these terms can be vaguely defined or open to interpretation.
Furthermore, the bill's prohibition on foreign ownership lacks clarity on how such ownership restrictions will be monitored and enforced, particularly in determining beneficial owners—a significant concern given the political sensitivity of foreign property ownership in the United States.
The assignment of costs involved in preparing the property for sale, including surveys and deferred maintenance, is another area of concern. The bill indicates that these costs will be covered by the sale's gross proceeds but does not specify who bears these costs initially, which could pose financial challenges if the property takes time to sell.
Requiring specific future appropriation for use of the net proceeds might delay the availability of these funds, posing potential difficulties in timely public infrastructure reinvestment.
The reference to an agreement with the Farley-Beverly Drainage District from 1967 may also present legal challenges if the agreement's terms are outdated, potentially complicating or delaying the sale process.
Impact on the Public
For the public, the bill's successful implementation might free up federal resources and direct proceeds from the property sale toward necessary public expenditures. However, delays in selling or legal disputes could impact budget timelines or service delivery on expected projects funded by these proceeds. The bill’s focus on selling properties at a fair market value aims to ensure that public resources are not undersold, thereby protecting taxpayer interests.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Specific stakeholders include federal agencies, the surrounding community, and potential property buyers. Federal agencies, especially the Bureau of Prisons and the General Services Administration, face the task of executing the bill's requirements efficiently. Successful sales could alleviate maintenance or administrative burdens associated with underutilized properties.
The local community might experience changes in land use, potentially attracting new businesses or developments if the properties are sold successfully for more valuable uses. However, any delays in clarifying maintenance responsibilities or legal entanglements could prolong uncertainty.
Prospective buyers may have difficulty navigating the "highest and best use" requirements and foreign ownership restrictions, which could either limit competitive bidding or deter interested parties. The lack of clarity and potential financial burden due to pre-sale cost requirements pose additional challenges.
The bill’s impacts will depend heavily on how effectively its provisions are clarified and executed, balancing between safeguarding public assets and facilitating efficient property transactions.
Issues
The requirement that the property must be sold at fair market value and at highest and best use (Section 1(a)) might limit potential buyers or complicate the sale process. Clarification could be needed on how these terms are defined and enforced, which is significant for ensuring the transparency and fairness of public asset sales.
The prohibition on foreign ownership (Section 1(g)) needs more clarity on enforcement mechanisms and how beneficial ownership will be determined and enforced. This is politically and ethically significant to ensure national security and fairness in property transactions.
The costs for preparing the property for sale, including the survey and deferred maintenance (Section 1(e)), are to be reimbursed from the gross proceeds, but the bill does not specify who will initially bear these costs. This could be a financial issue if the sale process extends over a long period.
The requirement for specific future appropriation of net proceeds (Section 1(f)(2)) before expenditures might delay necessary spending due to potential legislative slowdowns. This financial issue could impact budget planning and the timeliness of reinvesting in public infrastructure.
The reference to the 'agreement between the United States and the Farley-Beverly Drainage District' entered into in 1967 (Section 1(d)) could present complications if the terms are outdated or unclear. This legal issue may delay the sale or add unforeseen obligations.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Real property conveyance Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the process for selling property in Missouri connected to the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, within two years of the enactment of the Act. It specifies that the sale must be at fair market value, requires a survey to determine the property's legal description, stipulates that any maintenance must be addressed before the sale, and mandates that net proceeds go to the Federal Buildings Fund, prohibiting foreign ownership.