Like TURF
Follow TURFHouse passes eminent domain bill, makes marginal improvements
However, the most shocking development was the failure to strip out the blight and economic development loopholes or to clarify the broad language in the bill that gives wide latitude to both public and private entities to condemn private property without defining terms like bona fide offer. The Senate author of the bill, Sen. Craig Estes, even called this a special interests bill and acknowledged the broad language would lead to more litigation. Who has the ability to litigate? The governmental or private condemning entities and well-connected or wealthy landowners, but certainly not the average Texas landowner who is vulnerable to eminent domain abuses and forced to settle because he/she lacks the resources to fight it.
The bill still fails to protect landowners from Kelo abuses (ie - blight, economic development, foreign-owned toll roads), and continues the authority of private entities to benefit from eminent domain in the name of a laundry list of various "public uses," including a library, museum, or related facility and ANY infrastructure related to the facility. What's a "related facility"? Condos? A movie theater?
Also shocking was the fact that the Sheffield Amendment to insist that any taking was "necessary" for that public use was voted down by an overwhelmingly "conservative" House by 99 members. Sheffield had 39 co-authors to his amendment. Apparently that's how many House members truly believe in property rights. NO taking should ever occur unless it's absolutely NECESSARY for that public use!
Rep. Rene Oliveira, Chair of the House Land and Resource Committee, actually argued AGAINST the Sheffield Amendment saying there's a "presumption" that the condemnation is "necessary." He's an attorney and ought to know better that Texas case law and the Supreme Court Kelo case have eroded property rights and granted governmental entities more and more power to take private property under the auspices of economic development and blight that many would question whether that taking was "necessary." Redeveloping a poor neighborhood and taking peoples' land for a shopping mall or retail strip center isn't seen as "necessary."
Oliveira hear all the testimony in favor of public necessity in Committee and asked witnesses to tell lawmakers which should they fight for, public use (easier to get) or public necessity (much harder to get past the Governor and the cities and counties against such language) and the answer the public gave, was no doubt "public necessity." To turn around and argue against what the public and landowners have persistently asked for is stunning.
For more information on the eminent domain bill and the abuses taking place in Texas today, go here.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Link to article here.
House passes eminent domain bill
By Tim Eaton | Austin American Statesman - Wednesday, April 13, 2011, 03:53 PM
The Texas House unanimously gave preliminary approval Wednesday a bill that seeks to strengthen private property owners’ rights.
Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth, sponsored the eminent domain bill, Senate Bill 18, which limits the state’s power to take or condemn private property for public use.
The measure would change eminent domain laws by including provisions that would allow property owners to repurchase taken property and require the governmental body acquiring the land to make a bona fide offer to purchase property.
The bill also would prohibit a government or private entity from taking land that was not for a public use. The acquiring governmental entities would have to pay relocation expenses for displaced property owners and provide a relocation advisory service.
The bill originated in the Senate and was originally authored by Sen. Craig Estes, R-Wichita Falls. A slightly different version of the bill passed the upper chamber in February.
A final vote in the House is still to come.
Get more Legislative coverage inside the Virtual Capitol