Owners Fighting Eminent Domain Freeport, Texas

The Facts ^ | 8-1-2004 | By Michael Baker

[buffyt]

FREEPORT, TEXAS — Little can spur an argument over constitutional property rights like the two words that have been popping up regularly at the city’s meetings as of late. Freeport is embroiled in two separate battles — to develop both a marina and a new residential area — using eminent domain, the power of a government to seize private land for public use. Through a court proceeding, an entity can take property by offering fair market value as compensation. But the two words have been rattling about much more than just Freeport’s council chambers. “It’s certainly a nationwide, growing phenomenon,” said Scott Bullock, senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, a libertarian nonprofit group. “Coupled with that, property owners are starting to fight back against these condemnations, organizing public opposition to these efforts.” Between 1998 and 2002, there were more than 10,000 real and threatened cases of eminent domain in the United States, Bullock said. And the victorious side often comes down to the debate of what constitutes “public” use. To Bullock, the power should be limited to the blatantly public projects, such as interstates, reservoirs or military facilities. “If eminent domain is being used purely for private-to-private transfers, it is being abused,” Bullock said. “It’s not being used for what it was originally designed.” The marina would fall outside of Bullock’s definition. Through eminent domain, the city is trying to procure some waterfront land along the Old Brazos River for the project. Among the potential targets are Western Seafood Co., which sued over original marina plans that included 330 feet of the company’s property. City Council is sticking by the project, recently extending its agreement with the marina’s developers that had expired July 1. City officials originally had hoped to have the marina operational by May, but the lawsuit slowed that process down. U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent is expected to issue an opinion on the case within the next two weeks, according to Kent’s office. Wright Gore III, son of the company’s president, said losing that property would devastate the business. “That would stop us from being able to take in shrimp from boat owners, as we have for over 50 years,” Gore said. “We’re fighting for survival to do business.” Gore questioned the justification of using eminent domain to take the company’s property. It benefits the developers who also would get a $6 million loan from the city, not the taxpayers, he said. Councilman Jim Phillips said the marina would be for the public good. “In other words, what is the best use of the property?” Phillips said. “We have determined that the best possible use would be for a marina.” Any impact to Western Seafood’s business would be minimal, Phillips said. There could even be a minimal reconfiguration of the slips to make sure it didn’t interfere with the facility’s operations, he said. The marina is expected to boost the city’s revitalization efforts, attracting other businesses and promoting development. The city’s other eminent domain battle, however, is intended to increase the city’s population. There is a barren 400 acres in the middle of the city, the result of a land rush more than 100 years ago. Developers divided the land between what is now Skinner Street and Velasco Boulevard, North Avenue F’s alley and the railroad to the city’s north into small tracts, not big enough for modern development. The tracts were bought up and passed down through generations, some now owned by as many as 50 people, City Attorney Wallace Shaw said. For nearly 40 years, the city has been trying to procure the land for an urban renewal project. Once complete, the land could have 550 home sites along manmade lakes, several parks and an encircling hike and bike trail. Most of the owners have been willing to sell, Shaw said. But the city is involved in eminent domain proceedings to get 94 of the 700 remaining lots, Phillips said. Freeport resident Jeanne McKenzie is one such owner who is not ready to give up her undeveloped tract along Skinner Street. It is willed to her and her sister from her mother, who is living in a nursing home. The offer for it was $100, she said. “I’m not going to sell my property, my inheritance, at this time,” McKenzie said. “It’s ridiculous and an insult. It’s been in my family ever since I can remember.” Shaw said the law is clear when it comes to urban renewal projects. “It is the means whereby cities can acquire titles to blighted property or property that can’t be used for various reasons,” Shaw said. “It can be blocked up and sold to developers to develop it.” While city officials have said they are using eminent domain as a last resort, Bullock pointed to a study by the Goldwater Institute to show it was not necessary for development. The study highlighted award-winning development accomplished without the power, showing eminent domain and economic development do not go hand-in-hand, he said. Both McKenzie and Gore said they want to see the city develop and prosper. “We’d love to see a marina or any development either on the waterfront or in the downtown district to improve the economic situation of Freeport,” Gore said. “But the city of Freeport’s use of eminent domain is just out of control.” But as Western Seafood has organized its opposition to the city’s efforts, city officials have said it is distorting the extent to which the city will exercise its power. No one will be left homeless from an eminent domain proceeding, Phillips said. “We have never taken anyone’s home by eminent domain,” Phillips said. “I think, other than in urban renewal, we have never taken a residential lot. “And we have absolutely no plans to do otherwise.” Michael Baker covers the city of Freeport for The Facts. Contact him at (979) 237-0150.

[buffyt]

eminent domain story

[buffyt]

I know that the same guy who developed the boardwalk area in Kemah, I think Tillman Fertita (?), big time democrat donor, wants to build similar boardwalk in Freeport. I am sure he wants it right where Western Seafood is. I wonder how this will all turn out?

[No Blue States]

How long before they use ED to gobble up all the public beaches for seaside mansions and other private property, leaving the public with no beach access?

[sam_paine]

Councilman Jim Phillips said the marina would be for the public good. ?In other words, what is the best use of the property?? Phillips said. ?We have determined that the best possible use would be for a marina.?

Fascinating, Comrade! You are allowed to 'own' property unless the localpolitburo deems otherwise? Disgusting.

[Liberty Valance]

"an entity can take property by offering fair market value as compensation."

If the word is "take" then the value of "fair" should be determined by the original property owner. My impression: Investor group from Dallas offers city officials free lifetime memberships on future golf course to be built next to the marina.

[RISU]

When our land was formed the prevailing wisdom for the language which would be used in the Declaration was "Life, Liberty, & Property". But, because of the ones that live under rocks usually - now called the Democratic Party, it became "Life, Liberty & The Pursuit of Happiness", which means nothing.

Mark my words.

There is a revolution aborning since 1776, and the "issue" is PROPERTY. Finally, when that revolution is won, we will have our true righs and be come free - we will then be out from under the indentured servitude which is the condition of life in the United States where the state "owns" it all, and all the money is based upon debt. I suppose it was a step forward to remove physical chains from men. But so long as the chains of debt are still extant, we will not know our freedom.

[ridesthemiles]

The big trap here is "best use of the property". This isn't being decided by the PROPERTY OWNER. It is being decided by a politician or bureaucrat. Not only do they NOT have the right to make such a declaration, the "best use of the property" can change from day to day. Fremont Raceway is a good example in the Bay area. Raceway condemed for a better usage. Planners hadn't tested the water table. SALT water very close to surface. Large buildings not suitable. Car lots put in place went bellyup. Most of original raceway stands idle today. No income produced..no jobs..no place for your kids to have a good time..no sales taxes from food and souveniers, etc,etc. And who is paying the property taxes if the county condemned the land to convert it to something "more upscale"? Citizens need to stand up and stop this criminal behavior immediately.

How about deciding that "the best use of the property" could be applied to this scenario: Too many homeless persons clogging the streets in major downtown areas...causing "blight" in the eyes of the city council. So city council decides to restate the "best use" applies to the local 5 star hotel, and declares they can no longer operate as a hotel, instead, they must turn over property to homeless. Where does it end? We all can think of a story that would be obscene. Just use your imagination---seems the bureaucrats are doing just that. Since when is a "marina" a better use than a business that has existed for over 50 years, paid it's taxes, created jobs, played by the rules, etc?
Sounds like someone has a deep pocket and is getting paid by a developer to change the usage of the land to the benefit of some and the detriment of many. Land use lawyers are going to be in short supply very quickly.

[NEBO]

You are RIGHT!

[Servant of the 9]

Projects like Greenway Plaza in Houston prove that developers can assemble old broken up property for redevelopment without Imminent Domain if they are willing to work at it and pay a fair price.
This is just a product of greed and laziness.

SO9

[buffyt]

TOTALLY! And in this case I think the developer is a very rich successful man. He created the Kemah Boardwalk and the Aquarium restaurants, among others. He probably intimidates everyone. Like a JF Kerry.

[o_zarkman44]

Fair market value should be determined by the projected value of developing the property rather than current "undeveloped value". There is much property owned for speculative purpose.
Why should a current owner be forced to sacrifice property only to see an "appointed" owner profit immensely because it is in the so called public interest? The generation of increased property tax from development isn't necessarly in the benefit of the public. If an entity has survived without increased property tax collection, how can seizure of property by eminent domain be justified if property is returned to a private, for profit developer? If the development is worth millions of dollars in public and private revenue, I want a fair piece of the action!!!! Not a pittance.
I thought eminant domain was only used for public works improvements like highways.

[EdReform]

read later