Kansas racing industry gets behind bill to fend off nuisance lawsuits tied to noise complaints
John Allen, general manager of racetracks in Park City and Humboldt, says the Kansas Legislature needs to pass a law providing civil immunity from neighbors filing lawsuits due to noise pollution from motorsports facilities. The bill is under consideration in the Kansas House. (Kansas Reflector screen capture of Kansas Legislature video)
TOPEKA — Motorsports businessman John Allen believes viability of Kansas racetracks would be improved with a state law granting limited civil immunity from noise or nuisance lawsuits filed by neighboring property owners who came along after establishment of a racing facility.
Allen, who serves as general manager of 81 Speedway in Park City and the Humboldt Speedway, told House Transportation Committee members Thursday that longstanding tracks shouldn’t be financially undercut by newcomers who disliked their proximity to high-decibel vehicles on dragstrips or circular tracks. He endorsed House Bill 2416, which would provide protection from civil actions based on “nuisance, taking or similar legal theories.”
“I think this is a great bill. May need a little tweak,” he said. “This would be a good fit to help protect our investments that were made in these communities.”
Rep. Leo Delperdang, R-Wichita, introduced the legislation, which was titled the Kansas Motorsports Venue Protection Act. No one spoke in opposition to the measure at the committee hearing, but several suggestions were made to amend the legislation. The committee took no votes on the bill.
Delperdang said the bill was designed to protect the rights of racetrack owners. The immunity could be invoked by a racing facility if it had been constructed before a building owned by a complainant, he said.
“It has to do with housing built around existing tracks only,” he said. “If the houses are there first, that’s a different story.”
The legislation wouldn’t provide immunity to a civil action alleging a violation of state or local laws or a circumstance prohibited by a permit issued to operators of a racing facility.
Delperdang said the bill might need to be altered to address racing facilities that had been shuttered for several years but were built before neighboring homes or businesses.
Victor Munoz, a lobbyist with Specialty Equipment Marketing Association and Performance Racing Industry said the Kansas bill was part of an effort in Indiana, Ohio, Oklahoma and other states to replicate an Iowa law providing immunity for racing facility owners under pressure from urban sprawl.
“This can happen very rapidly. Not because they operated unlawfully, but because development moves closer to the tracks,” Munoz said.
Munoz said older tracks faced lawsuits from newer neighbors or investors in nonracing building projects. The conflicts created legal uncertainty for track operators that could be resolved with adoption of “right to race” legislation, he said. He said the idea was to shield racetracks that were there first from claims made by noise-averse neighbors.
No mention was made during the Kansas committee hearing about whether existing businesses or homeowners could likewise gain protection from new motorsports developers.
Cindy Bell, operations manager for Kansas International Dragway, said the track near Maize opened in 1963 on isolated rural property. She said her records indicated every member of the House Transportation Committee had a constituent who raced at Dragway.
She said Kansas tracks could benefit from the type of state immunity law granted to Kansas firearms ranges that created noise problems for surrounding landowners.
“This is something the state has already set a precedent on,” she said. “We’re already protecting shooting ranges. We should look at this as well.”
She said people who moved into a house or business close to a racetrack — at least 20 operate in Kansas — should have taken notice of potential noise issues prior to purchase. However, she said, a $2.7 million home has been built about 500 feet from the Dragway track.