Georgia CommonsHouse · Introduced · 2025-2026 Regular Session
HB 1066: Nuisances; immunity from public and private nuisance claims; provide
Last action February 12, 2026 · House Committee Favorably Reported By Substitute
HB 1066 would shield existing motorsports racetracks in Georgia from public and private nuisance lawsuits filed by nearby property owners over noise, dust, lights, and similar effects of racing operations.
The summaries below were written by an AI model (claude-sonnet-5) from the text of the bill and are not part of it. Quote the text, not the summary. The stored text is the Comm Sub version, the latest the General Assembly's website lists.
In plain language
Currently, Georgia property owners can sue a nearby business, including a racetrack, for nuisance if noise, dust, traffic, or other conditions interfere with the use of their land. This bill adds a new section to Georgia's nuisance law (O.C.G.A. Chapter 1 of Title 41) that protects racing facilities from those lawsuits under certain conditions. If someone buys property or builds new construction near a racetrack that already existed, they could not later sue over routine racing noise, lights, dust, traffic, or similar effects. A racetrack also could not be found a nuisance just because surrounding conditions changed, as long as it has operated for at least one year. The protection covers a 5-mile radius around tracks in rural counties (under 50,000 people) and a 3-mile radius elsewhere. The immunity would not apply if the track itself materially changes its historic operations. The law would take effect July 1, 2026, and apply to nuisance lawsuits filed on or after that date.
What the bill does
- Creates a new Georgia Code section (O.C.G.A. § 41-1-11) giving racing facilities immunity from public and private nuisance lawsuits tied to normal racing operations.
- Bars nuisance claims from property owners who bought land or built new construction near an already-existing racetrack, within a defined distance.
- Sets that distance at a 5-mile radius around tracks in rural counties (population under 50,000) and 3 miles around tracks in all other counties.
- Protects a racetrack from being called a nuisance solely due to changed surrounding conditions, once it has operated for at least one year.
- Carves out an exception: the immunity does not apply if the racetrack itself makes a material change to its historic operations.
- Sets the law to take effect July 1, 2026, applying only to nuisance lawsuits filed on or after that date.
Who it affects
Owners and operators of motorsports racing facilities in Georgia, nearby property owners and homeowners who might otherwise sue over noise, dust, lights, or traffic, and Georgia courts that hear nuisance lawsuits involving racetracks.
Why it matters
People who move near an established racetrack, or build new homes there, would lose the ability to sue over the noise, dust, lighting, and traffic that come with normal race events, as long as the track hasn't changed its historic operations and has run for at least a year.
Key provisions
- Section 1 adds O.C.G.A. § 41-1-11, defining 'racing facility,' 'racing operations,' 'area of the racing facility,' and 'rural county' for purposes of the immunity.
- Subsection (b) bars nuisance claims from property owners who purchased or built near a pre-existing racetrack within its defined radius.
- Subsection (c) protects a racetrack from nuisance liability based on changed surrounding conditions once it has operated for at least one year.
- Subsection (d) states the immunity does not cover claims based solely on a material change to the track's historic racing operations.
- Section 2 sets the effective date as July 1, 2026, applying to nuisance actions filed on or after that date.
- Section 3 repeals conflicting laws.
From the bill
“No property owner shall bring a nuisance claim, either public or private, against a racing facility that was built before such property owner purchased real property or built new construction within the area of the racing facility when such claim is related to or arises from racing operations.”
“The immunity provided by this Code section shall not apply to claims based solely on a material change to the historic racing operations of a racing facility.”
Discussed in meetings (8)
The House and Senate meetings that took this bill up, from their machine transcripts. Each account was written by Georgia Commons with AI and is not part of the record; the video is what was said.
House Governmental Affairs Committee, February 4, 2026
From 0:21:30 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said HB 1066 would bar certain public and private nuisance claims by property owners within five miles who bought or built after a racing facility existed. The sponsor described protection for facilities operating at least one year against claims arising solely from changed surrounding conditions, with an exception for material schedule changes substantially increasing late-night or early-morning operations. The sponsor said local rules and negligence claims would remain unaffected. One member questioned the radius, buyer notice, court access and possible housing costs, estimating that 30 tracks would cover 1.5 million acres. The sponsor reported 41 to 44 tracks and defended five miles based on terrain and sound travel. Legislative counsel confirmed that protection was not limited to noise and that local governments could still change operating rules. Supporters emphasized established businesses, tourism and jobs; other members raised concerns about residents and broader nuisance protection. An industry witness said performance racing supported 9,087 Georgia jobs. The sponsor declined immediate narrowing but offered further discussions. An amendment reducing the radius to three miles failed by voice vote. A noise-only amendment failed 7 to 9. The committee approved the unchanged bill by voice vote.
House Rules Committee, February 10, 2026
From 0:31:48 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The committee secretary moved to return HB 1066 to the Governmental Affairs Committee. The motion received a second, and the chair announced the return with no opposition stated. No discussion of the bill's contents was shown.
House Governmental Affairs Committee, February 11, 2026
From 0:21:20 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor presented a recommitted substitute for HB 1066, describing nuisance-claim protections within five miles of racetracks in rural counties and three miles elsewhere. The sponsor said it defined covered racing activities and effects, excluded certain off-road uses, preserved environmental standards and local authority, and withheld immunity for claims based solely on material changes to historic operations. One member argued that conflicting provisions could block claims even after noise or other disturbances increased, affecting more than two million acres. Legislative counsel said material changes would require factual determinations and the proposal did not alter governmental powers. The sponsor argued that established tracks deserved protection and locally approved racing expansions should not necessarily count as material changes. A second member opposed granting protections industry by industry. Another member supported clarifying protections for existing businesses but questioned the distinction between changed conditions and material changes. The sponsor declined a suggestion to add high school athletic fields and expressed willingness to clarify language. No further amendment was adopted in the transcript. The committee approved the substitute 9 to 8.
House Rules Committee, February 17, 2026
From 0:45:44 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said the bill would provide racetracks and racing operations immunity from public and private nuisance claims. The sponsor said changes had been developed since the previous committee meeting and requested consideration of a substitute through the Rules Committee, but did not explain the changes. No substitute was adopted and no other decision followed.
- Read aloud: House floor session, January 29, 2026 (legislative day 9), 0:41:57
- Read aloud: House floor session, February 2, 2026 (legislative day 10), 0:53:46
- Read aloud: House floor session, February 5, 2026 (legislative day 13), 0:49:24
- Read aloud: House floor session, February 12, 2026 (legislative day 18), 0:59:19
Status timeline
- House Committee Favorably Reported By Substitute (House)
- House Withdrawn, Recommitted (House)
- House Committee Favorably Reported (House)
- House Second Readers (House)
- House First Readers (House)
- House Hopper (House)
Sponsors
- Will Wade (R, HD-9)
- Alan Powell (R, HD-33)
- Karen Mathiak (R, HD-82)
- Tyler Paul Smith (R, HD-18)
- Josh Bonner (R, HD-73)
- Rob Clifton (R, HD-131)
Topics
- nuisance law
- motorsports racing
- property rights
- rural counties
- land use