S. 601 (119th)Bill Overview

A bill to remove restrictions from a parcel of land in Paducah, Kentucky.

Public Lands and Natural Resources|KentuckyLand transfers
Sponsor
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Feb 13, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to execute whatever instruments are necessary to remove all deed restrictions from a specific 3.62-acre parcel at 2956 Park Avenue in Paducah, Kentucky. The restrictions referenced are those in the quitclaim deed from the United States to the City of Paducah dated April 27, 2012.

Why people may split

Progressives stress environmental and public-benefit safeguards.

Watch point

Local, low-cost technical fix typically noncontroversial but requires committee and floor time.

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to execute whatever instruments are necessary to remove all deed restrictions from a specific 3.62-acre parcel at 2956 Park Avenue in Paducah, Kentucky.

The restrictions referenced are those in the quitclaim deed from the United States to the City of Paducah dated April 27, 2012.

The action would eliminate easements, reservations, terms, conditions, and covenants recorded with that deed.

Passage80/100

Very narrow, low-cost, administrative land-title removal generally enjoys bipartisan, low-resistance support.

CredibilityPartial

How solid the drafting looks.

Contention18/100

Progressives stress environmental and public-benefit safeguards.

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Federal agencies · Local governmentsCommunities · Local governments

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Federal agenciesEnables City of Paducah to reuse or sell the parcel without federal deed constraints.
  • Local governmentsMay increase local economic development and redevelopment opportunities on the site.
  • Local governmentsCould raise property values and municipal tax revenue if converted to taxable use.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenRemoves protections that may have preserved environmental or public-use restrictions.
  • CommunitiesCould permit private development incompatible with community interests or historic preservation.
  • Local governmentsMight transfer cleanup or maintenance costs to local government or private owners.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Progressives stress environmental and public-benefit safeguards.
Progressive70%

Likely cautiously favorable if removal enables community-driven public uses or affordable housing, but wary about lost protections.

Concern focuses on environmental safeguards and public-interest conditions tied to the prior deed.

Support would depend on local transparency and guarantees against harm.

Leans supportive
Centrist80%

Pragmatic support likely if the transfer reduces unnecessary federal encumbrances and includes safeguards.

Wants clear title, limited federal liability, and transparency about intended local uses.

Will look for simple, technical fixes rather than broad policy precedent.

Leans supportive
Conservative95%

Generally supportive as a restoration of local control and reduction of federal encumbrance.

Views the bill as a small, sensible rollback of unnecessary federal restrictions that can spur private or municipal development.

Minimal federal involvement is preferred.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood80/100

Very narrow, low-cost, administrative land-title removal generally enjoys bipartisan, low-resistance support.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Any undisclosed environmental or liability concerns tied to the parcel
  • Whether third-party interests (eg. utilities, easement holders) object
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Progressives stress environmental and public-benefit safeguards.

Very narrow, low-cost, administrative land-title removal generally enjoys bipartisan, low-resistance support.

Unlocked analysis

Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for A bill to remove restrictions from a parcel of land in Paducah…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis