K.S.A. » Chapter 12
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 12-1773 (2026)

Acquisition of property; eminent domain, procedure; transfer by developer subject to approval by governing body

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

12-1773. Acquisition of property; eminent domain, procedure; transfer by developer subject to approval by governing body. (a) Any city which has adopted a redevelopment project plan in accordance with the provisions of this act may purchase or otherwise acquire real property in connection with such project plan. Upon a ⅔ vote of the members of the governing body thereof a city may acquire by condemnation any interest in real property, including a fee simple title thereto, which it deems necessary for or in connection with any project plan of an area located within the redevelopment district; however, eminent domain may be used only as authorized by K.S.A. 26-501b, and amendments thereto.

(b) No city shall exercise such eminent domain power to acquire real property in a conservation area.

(c) Any such city may exercise the power of eminent domain in the manner provided by K.S.A. 26-501 et seq., and amendments thereto.

(d) Any transfer by the developer of real property acquired pursuant to this section shall be valid only if approved by a ⅔ majority vote of the members of the governing body.

History: L. 1976, ch. 69, § 4; L. 1979, ch. 52, § 4; L. 1980, ch. 68, § 3; L. 1982, ch. 75, § 9; L. 1984, ch. 74, § 4; L. 1988, ch. 78, § 4; L. 1996, ch. 228, § 4; L. 1997, ch. 93, § 1; L. 1998, ch. 17, § 5; L. 2001, ch. 103, § 8; L. 2004, ch. 183, § 3; L. 2005, ch. 132, § 5; L. 2006, ch. 201, § 5; L. 2007, ch. 179, § 25; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1998–2007 · leading case: Miller v. Bartle, 150 P.3d 1282 (Kan. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Miller v. Bartle, 150 P.3d 1282 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 4× “In particular, the Bartles argued in their motion that the provision of K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 12-1773, which provided for an additional 25 percent of the fair market value to be awarded to condemnees’ whose property was taken for the *112 construction of the Kansas Speedway,…”
State Ex Rel. Tomasic v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte Cnty./Kansas City, 962 P.2d 543 (Kan. 1998). · cites it 5× “17, § 5, amending subsection [a] of K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 12-1773); and (5) specify that relocation assistance payments, with respect to any redevelopment project other than one which includes an auto race track facility, shall not be less than $500 (L.”
K.S.A. § 12-1773(a): 2 cases
State Ex Rel. Tomasic v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte Cnty./Kansas City, 962 P.2d 543 (Kan. 1998). “17, § 5, amending subsection [a] of K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 12-1773); and (5) specify that relocation assistance payments, with respect to any redevelopment project other than one which includes an auto race track facility, shall not be less than $500 (L.”
Miller v. Bartle, 150 P.3d 1282 (Kan. 2007). “In particular, the Bartles argued in their motion that the provision of K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 12-1773, which provided for an additional 25 percent of the fair market value to be awarded to condemnees’ whose property was taken for the *112 construction of the Kansas Speedway,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.