Sharp bill signed into law
FRANKFORT The governor has signed House Bill 315, a measure sponsored by Rep. Scott Sharp, Ashland-R, to protect Kentucky's agricultural land from hostile foreign entities, into law.
'With the support of my colleagues in both chambers and both sides of the aisle, Kentucky has now closed a door which has stood open to our nation's enemies for too long,' Sharp said. 'I am proud of the General Assembly for recognizing the seriousness of this issue, and for joining me in taking this necessary action to protect our citizens, our commonwealth, and our country.'
House Bill 315 will prohibit any foreign entity from purchasing, leasing or acquiring agricultural land in Kentucky if they are associated with a hostile foreign government identified by Title 22, section 126.1 of the Code of Federal Regulations and do not have a national security agreement with the Committee on Foreign Investment, according to a press release. These countries include China, Cuba, Iran and Venezuela among others. HB 315 will also prohibit any foreign entity associated with these countries from participating in agricultural programs offered by the commonwealth.
In addition, the bill requires agricultural land purchased for non-agricultural purposes by all foreign entities to be developed within five years of purchase, stated the release.
Visit legislature.ky.gov for more information.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Rudi 'splains it: How Kansas City stadium funding clears state constitutional hurdles
GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium, home of the Kansas City Chiefs, is pictured on Feb. 8, 2025 (Anna Spoerre/Missouri Independent). If Missouri lawmakers would provide the proper incentives, the promoters said, their project would vastly strengthen the economy of the state and enhance its national image as a place to do business. Without the incentives, they would go to another state. Those arguments persuaded the General Assembly to authorize $23.7 million of state-backed bonds to build railroads in the 1850s. Local governments also issued bonds to lure railroads to their counties. The railroads didn't keep their promise to repay the bonds and interest ballooned the debt to $32.3 million by the end of the Civil War. And at the State Convention of 1875, delegates voted to stop lawmakers from ever promising the state treasury as security for private debt. Over the last two weeks, history didn't repeat, but it did echo. The Missouri General Assembly listened to a modern group of promoters who convinced lawmakers to promise almost $1.5 billion over 30 years for bonds that will finance new or improved stadiums for the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals. The local government that wants to host the teams must also offer financial support. Professional sports are big business, and supporters warned the state would suffer economically if either or both teams move to Kansas. And, they said, the state's image would suffer. Welcome to the latest installment of Rudi 'splains it for a look at Missouri's history with economic development incentives. The 19th century aid to railroads is connected to the 21st century aid to sports stadiums because both times, lawmakers promised borrowers would be paid from tax revenues. The bill passed this week is a promise that future taxes will pay the bonds. That wasn't the case for the railroads, which were supposed to repay the debt from business profits but never did. When a State Convention met at the end of the Civil War, it put a question before voters: 'Shall the Railroad bonds be paid?' The ballot measure imposed a gross receipts tax on railroads and a statewide property tax. Voters approved it. The railroads never paid, but property owners did. The bond payments exceeded all other state government expenses. That's why the next State Convention voted to prevent a repeat of the financial fiasco. Missouri had learned its lesson. 'It was while listening to this delusive talk, to this cuckoo song, that the country was plunged into the enormous railroad debt which has been created for the state, the cities and counties and for individuals all through the land,' said delegate Thomas Gantt of St. Louis. 'People imagined that the benefit that was to come to the state, the city, county and the farm by the construction of those improvements was going to enrich all who were within hearing of the whistle of the locomotive.' The prohibition on lending state or local credit, or giving state or local public money, to private interests remains a part of the state Constitution. During debate on the stadium bill, opponents questioned whether the prohibition was being violated. 'The reason why the Constitution forbids that is because the drafters of that language knew that eventually the legislature would appropriate money to the people who we consider our friends, at the expense of everybody else in the state, instead of appropriate money or spend money for the good of all the general welfare of our state,' said state Rep. Bill Hardwick, a Republican from Dixon. Despite the prohibition, Missouri provides hundreds of millions annually in economic development incentives. In fiscal 2024, the state authorized $403 million in tax credits including $114 million for projects to rehabilitate old buildings, $84 million to build low-income housing and $101 million for new or expanding businesses through the Missouri Works program. Tax credit holders redeemed $904 million during the fiscal year, cashing in credits issued in past years. You may ask yourself, what makes one form of incentive legal and another illegal? The answer comes from the Missouri Supreme Court. When I was just a sprout of a reporter, still in journalism school, St. Louis had two daily newspapers, the Post-Dispatch and the Globe-Democrat. My professor, Phill Brooks, will tell you my reporting in the fall of 1986 is the reason there is only one today. The Globe-Democrat was a conservative newspaper and backed Republican Gov. John Ashcroft editorially. It was also failing, and businessmen John B. Prentis and William E. Franke, the owners, won approval of a $15 million state-backed loan to purchase a printing plant. I found, unsurprisingly, that both Prentis and Franke were contributors to Ashcroft's campaign. What was surprising is that only the five Republican members of the Missouri Industrial Development Board, also contributors to Ashcroft, attended the meeting that approved the Globe-Democrat loan. The loans were backed by a promise that, in the case of default, bondholders would receive tax credits equal to 50% of their loss. Ashcroft became concerned about the optics of the deal, didn't issue the loan and the newspaper folded. In a test case, involving a loan to a Joplin company, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled the program violated the Constitution. 'This tax credit is as much a grant of public money or property and is as much a drain on the state's coffers as would be an outright payment by the state to the bondholder upon default,' the court ruled in January 1987. 'There is no difference between the state granting a tax credit and foregoing the collection of the tax and the state making an outright payment to the bondholder from revenues already collected.' More recently, in 2023, lawmakers put $8.5 million into the budget for a no-interest loan to help Magnitude 7 Metals keep its New Madrid smelter open. Then-Gov. Mike Parson vetoed the money, citing the constitutional prohibition. The reason the current tax credit programs are legal and the one the Globe-Democrat tried to use was not is, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in 2011, that the U.S. Supreme Court had decided that tax credits are not the same thing as a direct expenditure of public funds. But the stadium bill does promise a direct appropriation from the treasury. Neither the Chiefs nor the Royals, however, will issue the stadium bonds or be directly responsible for paying the debt. That will be the job of either the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority, a public entity that owns the stadiums, or a new public entity created for the location where a new stadium is built. That means the direct payments for the stadium probably don't violate the constitution. But don't rely on me. I am not a lawyer or a judge. I just play one in the newspaper.
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Chicago's Springfield delegation socks it to the city's taxpayers with reckless pension bill
The fiscal hits just keep coming for Chicago, this time courtesy of the city's representatives and senators in Springfield. The latest fiasco played out in the final hours of the General Assembly's spring session, with the passage of legislation sweetening pension benefits for Chicago police and firefighters hired beginning in 2011, the first year of less generous 'Tier 2' benefits ironically meant to help the state and municipalities close their yawning pension deficits. The measure was passed so hurriedly that city officials appeared caught flat-footed and weren't able to say how much the changes will cost Chicago taxpayers over the long haul. Rest assured, though, the tax bill will be substantial. Chicago Chief Financial Officer Jill Jaworski, who lodged her opposition to the bill on behalf of the city shortly before its passage, told senators it would cost the city an estimated $52 million beginning in 2027, its first year in effect. Chicago faces a deficit exceeding $1 billion in 2026 and a similarly daunting hole for 2027. Here's how seriously Springfield took Jaworski's objections: The bill passed unanimously in both chambers. After voicing some opposition in committee, Republicans voted for it on the floor mainly because Chicago's Springfield delegation was in unanimous support. After all, there isn't a single GOP House member or senator from Chicago, and the bill raises taxes in Chicago alone. 'I think a lot in the Republican caucus said, 'Well, if this is what all of the voices representing Chicago want to do, who are we to disagree with them?'' Republican state Sen. Li Arellano Jr. from downstate Dixon told the Tribune. Many Chicago lawmakers will be boasting as we approach yet another campaign season about how they held the line on income and sales taxes in a particularly tight budget year in Springfield. Voters shouldn't be fooled. Every single one of those legislators acted to force inevitable future property tax hikes. Pension contributions are mainly funded by property taxes. Jaworski in her fruitless arguments against the bill called it an 'unfunded mandate.' And indeed it is. Arguments for the measure — which will raise the ceilings for annual pension payments, drive up those annual payouts for many beneficiaries via formulaic challenges in how they're determined, and boost cost-of-living increases — principally relied on fairness. Downstate police and fire retirees got those richer pension changes in 2019 when their disparate pension funds were consolidated. Since then, unions representing Chicago first responders have argued for the same treatment. We understand the desire to reward police officers and firefighters, who especially in the city of Chicago perform dangerous work and deserve our gratitude. But a pension, however sweet, won't be worth much if it helps drive the sponsor — in this case the city of Chicago — into insolvency. As of the end of 2023, Chicago's police pension fund held just 21.7% of the assets needed to meet its current and future obligations. Depressingly, that status was slightly worse than the 21.8% recorded in 2018. The city's firefighters fund was slightly worse off, with 21.6% of the assets required to be considered fully funded. The two funds at year-end 2023 together accounted for about $20 billion of Chicago's total $37 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. Joe Ferguson, president of the Civic Federation, told the Tribune he thought the state legislation would add billions to the two funds' long-term liabilities. With the plans so severely underfunded, just about the last thing rational people would do right now would be to add substantially to their liabilities. But that's what lawmakers just did. And where was Mayor Brandon Johnson in this debate? He and his intergovernmental affairs team seemed to be missing in action when it came to this extraordinarily damaging bill. It's troubling that lawmakers voted unanimously for a measure with such serious fiscal implications — and so little cost analysis. Who other than CFO Jaworski was raising alarms? The Johnson administration has made annual contributions to the city's retirement plans over and above what's required in law through a series of tough budgets. Those taxpayer contributions, well into the billions each year now, make no dent in these pension deficits if officeholders keep moving the goalposts farther away through more generous benefits. Common sense must prevail at some point. As difficult and embarrassing as it would be given the unanimous votes, Johnson ought to ask Gov. JB Pritzker to veto this bill in the interest of negotiating something more reasonable. And if the mayor won't do so, Pritzker should wield his veto pen anyway. Someone — anyone — with the power to do so needs to protect Chicago taxpayers. Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@
Chicago Tribune
15 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: Chicago's Springfield delegation socks it to the city's taxpayers with reckless pension bill
The fiscal hits just keep coming for Chicago, this time courtesy of the city's representatives and senators in Springfield. The latest fiasco played out in the final hours of the General Assembly's spring session, with the passage of legislation sweetening pension benefits for Chicago police and firefighters hired beginning in 2011, the first year of less generous 'Tier 2' benefits ironically meant to help the state and municipalities close their yawning pension deficits. The measure was passed so hurriedly that city officials appeared caught flat-footed and weren't able to say how much the changes will cost Chicago taxpayers over the long haul. Rest assured, though, the tax bill will be substantial. Chicago Chief Financial Officer Jill Jaworski, who lodged her opposition to the bill on behalf of the city shortly before its passage, told senators it would cost the city an estimated $52 million beginning in 2027, its first year in effect. Chicago faces a deficit exceeding $1 billion in 2026 and a similarly daunting hole for 2027. Here's how seriously Springfield took Jaworski's objections: The bill passed unanimously in both chambers. After voicing some opposition in committee, Republicans voted for it on the floor mainly because Chicago's Springfield delegation was in unanimous support. After all, there isn't a single GOP House member or senator from Chicago, and the bill raises taxes in Chicago alone. 'I think a lot in the Republican caucus said, 'Well, if this is what all of the voices representing Chicago want to do, who are we to disagree with them?'' Republican state Sen. Li Arellano Jr. from downstate Dixon told the Tribune. Many Chicago lawmakers will be boasting as we approach yet another campaign season about how they held the line on income and sales taxes in a particularly tight budget year in Springfield. Voters shouldn't be fooled. Every single one of those legislators acted to force inevitable future property tax hikes. Pension contributions are mainly funded by property taxes. Jaworski in her fruitless arguments against the bill called it an 'unfunded mandate.' And indeed it is. Arguments for the measure — which will raise the ceilings for annual pension payments, drive up those annual payouts for many beneficiaries via formulaic challenges in how they're determined, and boost cost-of-living increases — principally relied on fairness. Downstate police and fire retirees got those richer pension changes in 2019 when their disparate pension funds were consolidated. Since then, unions representing Chicago first responders have argued for the same treatment. We understand the desire to reward police officers and firefighters, who especially in the city of Chicago perform dangerous work and deserve our gratitude. But a pension, however sweet, won't be worth much if it helps drive the sponsor — in this case the city of Chicago — into insolvency. As of the end of 2023, Chicago's police pension fund held just 21.7% of the assets needed to meet its current and future obligations. Depressingly, that status was slightly worse than the 21.8% recorded in 2018. The city's firefighters fund was slightly worse off, with 21.6% of the assets required to be considered fully funded. The two funds at year-end 2023 together accounted for about $20 billion of Chicago's total $37 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. Joe Ferguson, president of the Civic Federation, told the Tribune he thought the state legislation would add billions to the two funds' long-term liabilities. With the plans so severely underfunded, just about the last thing rational people would do right now would be to add substantially to their liabilities. But that's what lawmakers just did. And where was Mayor Brandon Johnson in this debate? He and his intergovernmental affairs team seemed to be missing in action when it came to this extraordinarily damaging bill. It's troubling that lawmakers voted unanimously for a measure with such serious fiscal implications — and so little cost analysis. Who other than CFO Jaworski was raising alarms? The Johnson administration has made annual contributions to the city's retirement plans over and above what's required in law through a series of tough budgets. Those taxpayer contributions, well into the billions each year now, make no dent in these pension deficits if officeholders keep moving the goalposts farther away through more generous benefits. Common sense must prevail at some point. As difficult and embarrassing as it would be given the unanimous votes, Johnson ought to ask Gov. JB Pritzker to veto this bill in the interest of negotiating something more reasonable. And if the mayor won't do so, Pritzker should wield his veto pen anyway. Someone — — with the power to do so needs to protect Chicago taxpayers.
