Jul 29 2009

Texas eminent domain reform revisited

Category: Eminent DomainGene Hall @ 19:12

Eminent Domain Reform

How many of you thought the troublesome issue of eminent domain reform was over and done with? After all, there was a news conference in front of the Alamo claiming victory for property rights. Texas Farm Bureau was there. It was a victory, but a smaller one than some might say.

The passage of House Joint Resolution 14 does put a constitutional amendment on the ballot this November that prevents eminent domain use for economic development. It’s the last of the 11 ballot propositions – Proposition 11 – and perhaps the most important.

Proposition 11 will prevent the taking of private property for use by other private entities. Much of this was already in statute, but a constitutional amendment gives it teeth. Texas Farm Bureau will work very hard to pass this amendment with a substantial majority. In fact, we’d like to make it a referendum on finishing the job on eminent domain reform.

That’s right. The job is not yet done. The veto of reform in 2007 and the legislative log jam that was the 2009 legislative session has left Texas – a state with a self image of strong property rights – with one of nation’s worst eminent domain laws. We still have to change that if we’re serious about property rights in Texas. Other states, California and Florida among them, compensate fairly when property is taken. Are we really willing to settle for less here in the Lone Star State?

We still don’t know how many entities have eminent domain in Texas. There are thousands of them though. If they "low ball" you on a first offer for your property, then the decision and the expense of taking the matter to court is yours. So are the relocation expenses and every other cost associated with this unfair process. If you lose access to your property, there is no compensation. Still missing is a workable definition of public use.

We are now up to two bills, and counting, that would have reformed eminent domain in a way that does not saddle Texas property owners with the lion’s share of the consequences for progress. Governor Perry could have and should have included eminent domain reform in the recent special session. I expect he will often be asked why he did not.

Everyone who cares about reforming eminent domain should work to keep the issue alive until 2011. At stake is a question of basic fairness. Texas talks the talk on property rights. It’s time to walk the walk. We can start on November 3 with a big turnout and overwhelming passage of Proposition 11. Then the real work begins.

 

Share on Facebook

Comments

1.
JD United States says:

Thank heavens, something we can agree on! Everyone knows the only entities that should have eminent domain are oil companies.  *joke!!!*

Fine summary, Gene.  Good luck in November.  

2.
SJ United States says:

As the work progresses on the PUC CREZ line in West Texas and the Panhandle, I feel a number of landowners will wish they had participated more strongly in past attempts for improvement of eminent domain legislation.  The CREZ line will be a network of large electrical transmission lines bringing wind generation power to the Golden Triangle.  While the CREZ will require miles of easement, not much conversation has gone on about the miles of smaller transmission lines that will be required to bring the power from the wind generation farms to the collecting substations (160 acres are required for each substation) of the CREZ transmission line.  Easements will be required for these lines as well.  All the power line construction companies have the power of eminent domain if necessary.

Let me add I am not against the construction of the power lines or establishment of wind generation farms. I hope the entire project is done in a fair and equitable way for participants and is a win-win for all.

3.
Joseph Hayes United States says:

I am a 40 year old Texas citizen who is looking after his 79 year old mother. She is a victim of Eminent Domaine for the building of a loop. Now I think that the State of Texas should consider a persons age in consideration of the amount of money offered for their land. She has lived in the same house for over twenty years which is very close to her work. Yes she still works a full time job at Wal Mart. She lives about one mile straight hwy shot down the road. Now they are getting her land and giving a low appraisal value. There are to inconsistancys with this. Number one relocating her is a quality of life issue for the elderly. Most tend to get nervous and seem to have quicker onset of death than a person who is stable and secure. I dont know that this could be proven, but just ask nursing homes what happens when they move the patients around alot. Second her land is in the middle of commercial property but we think they will appraise it as residential. She was offered very large sums by buisness men until the loop came to be known. I just wanted to post this to show that many varibles should be considered in accuiring land through Eminent Domaine. Keep in mind that her disabled vetren son lives with her. He and two other sons served in the Armed Services, he was actually in Viet Nam. Now it seems sad after this familys sacrfice, the State she lives in is taking her land away whether she likes it or not.

4.
Michael L. Maurer, Sr. United States says:

As a member of the Comal County Farm Bureau, and a property owner that has to deal with governmental entities with the power of eminent domain and private entities (utility companies) that do not claim these powers....  I do not see a clear benefit in affirming the State's intent to hand out eminent domain powers to private utility companies such as your local cable, telephone, water, or electric provider.  How many entities currently have eminent domain powers... all facets of state government, GBRA, and school districts to name a few.  Do you really believe a 2/3's vote by both houses with keep these liberals in Austin from handing out more eminent domain authority to private entities???  These legislators are abusing their powers constantly and people need to stand up and say "NO".
     The State is still exempted from the proposed Amendment, for whatever it does.  The word 'adequate' means exactly that.  It doesn't mean JUST or FAIR.  
     And in taking of one’s property in the event of urban blight, blight is a far reaching word.  Urban blight could mean that 50 acre wooded homestead that refused to sell to developers but now with homes and businesses surrounding it.  Blight could mean that undeveloped 5 acres that is part of your homestead that’s been encroached upon by a city.  Urban blight could mean too many things to the liberals in Austin.
     The State intends to dole out these powers to these utility providers beginning in 2010 (SEE HJR14)...  and 'these thieves in the night' in Austin want the voter's blessings via this constitutional amendment.  The voters should not acknowledge this corruption of power and should send these politicians in Austin a resounding "NO" on the proposed eminent domain constitutional amendment on Nov. 03.
     Over the year, these legislators passede another law (gun/animal right) law for the continuation of use if annexed by a city.  Bad thing about that law is that where once cities controlled gun/farm animal issues within their corporate city limits, because of a passge of a law a few years ago, city now control these two issues with their respective ETJs as well.  Educate yourself on what their true intent is... ande vote.
    
    

5.
ghall United States says:

Thank you all for your comments.  It will be a big job to keep this in the public eye for another two years.  I hope you'll help us do it.

Gene

6.
Jim Kitchens United States says:

I never really thought very much about Eminent Domain until I purchased a small ranch about 5 years ago.  Now I really see how this thing works and what can happen if we are not vigelent enough to watch out for ourselves.  Dad always said that if you want something done right, do it yourself.  But we elect people to represent us in Washington and in our own State legislature and hope we have made the right decisions in them.  Some disappoint us but then some come along and stick to what they said they would do.  Our Texas Farm bureau trys to keep them honest and helping the farmers and reachers, but it is a daunting job.  Thanks for all you do and I for one will be at the poles to support our right our land.
Jim Kitchens
Brady Texas

7.
Marilynn Dierschke United States says:

Gene, thanks for the article.  As a couple who fought and managed to save their homeplace a few years ago, we had a number of political leaders who sided with us on the issue in the Texas Legislature.  Back then, some Farm Bureau members had the notion that eminent domain didn't concern them because they would not be involved with the TransTexas Corridor.  I hope that those same folks now know how this issue can impact on them and that the county membership will meet with and take a very strong stand with the legislators they elect to do what is right for all the people of Texas.

8.
Travis Buster United States says:

That’s so when “the farmer’s fat wife is off waddling into Wal-Mart” we don’t have to get her signature. Explanation of why my homestead rights were removed if my wife and I did not sign the easement that removed our homestead and all rights including agriculture and access from a 90' strip of our property that landlocks the remainder of our ranch via an easement taken thru eminent domain by a Municipal Utility District for a sewer line.  I know it sounds unbelievable so email me at Travisbuster@msn.com if you would like to see a copy of the easement taken. The sewer easements on the property served by the MUD do not contain any of these illegal terms.  I am spending large amounts of time and money to fight this in Kaufman County.  This isn’t economic development; it’s theft.

9.
Gene Hall United States says:

Travis - We hear more and more stories like this one.  It might not help you in your current situation, but we are determined to get meaningful eminent domain reform.  The answer is to vote for Propostion 11 in November, but don't allow the governor or anyone else to pretend that it finishes the job.  Let your state legislator know that you expect the Legislature to finally finish the job in 2011 or preferably, in a special session before then.

10.
Travis Buster United States says:

Gene, I appreciate your concern and your efforts.  Let me know if there is anything specific you could use from me that might help.

11.
Diana Fisch United States says:

We have an issue of Oncor high power transmission lines coming through our countryside in Lampasas and surrounding counties. I understand legislation has already authorized these power lines as needed but we are concerned with eminent domain once routes are filed. We also have a dairy in close proximity and are concerned with herbicides used for easements affecting both man and animal as well as environment. Am I correct in thinking that the more land the State takes away, the less property taxes they get? We are pushing the wildlife farther and farther back. How would eminent domain work with buried cable lines? It seems that would take less room, can follow the highways, can go under water, can't be a target for terrorists and less property owners affected with land being forfeited in the first place.

12.
CM United States says:

Owner of about 20 acres of farmland near a small municipal airport.  City made "low ball" offer to acquire the land stating in its offer letter that it was needed for expansion of the airport. After hiring an attorney, requesting documents from the City regarding the proposed use of the property, and doing much work on appraising and valuing the property, the City sent a letter rescinding its offer due to a "change in priorities." The City admitted that a  plan to expand the airport has never been approved or adopted, nor even discussed in the minutes of any City Council meetings. The approval to make the offer was given in Executive Session so there is nothing on the record as to what plans or proposals may have been discussed relating to the acquisition and use of the land.

I am troubled because I had to go to significant expense, time and effort to respond to the City's offer and prepare to fight the taking by eminent domain or at least to ensure that I be given fair compensation for the taking, despite the fact the City had not even established that there was a public need for acquiring the entire land.  Is there no protection for a landowner to prevent a City from attempting to acquire land at a bargain basement price without a legitimate and established public need, and then simply rescinding the offer was it is determined that the landowner is not going to simply accept the low ball offer? Is there nothing to prevent this from happening again at the whim of a few City officials?

13.
ghall United States says:

CM-This sort of thing has become common across the state.  The taking entities have too much power and the property owner too little recourse.  Takings are far too easy.  Propostion 11 won't entirely fix Texas' terrible eminent domain laws, but it's a start.  I believe it should be treated like a referendum on eminent domain reform.  We need 65% or better approval margin on November 3.  

Twice, there have been excellent bills to reform eminent domain, in 2007 and 2009.  IN 2007 Governor Perry vetoed the most important property rights bill in 15 years.  In 2009, the bill had the votes but was one of dozens of bills that were shut down in the voter ID controversy.  Then, Governor Perry refused to put it in the call for a special session.

We need to pass Prop 11, though it's not the complete answer to reform.  Then in the next session, we will try again.  The most prominet missing piece in this puzzle is leadership from the governor's office.

14.
Jody Giddens United States says:

Eminent Domain problems-Williamson County---I have only lived in this county 58 years, we are paying for being one of the fastest growing counties in the US.  The problem we are having is the county representatives are paying one price for some peoples land then getting low-ball appraisals on adjoining or across the road from other peoples land, that they have owned for many, many years.

There is no fairness to their process, if developers land is worth a certain price shouldn't the neighbors be worth the same?  Especially if all the land is comparable and all un-platted.

Jody Giddens
Giddens Real Estate

15.
Carla Reyes United States says:

Eminent domain is an aberration, politically damaging to any Government entity. Property rights should be respected at all times, it is clearly said "property" it only has one meaning. Take land in the name of "the public good"is crap

Add comment




  Country flag

biuquote
  • Comment
  • Preview
Loading