Posted on 06/24/2005 8:16:19 PM PDT by InvisibleChurch
Freeport moves to seize 3 properties Court's decision empowers the city to acquire the site for a new marina By THAYER EVANS Chronicle Correspondent
FREEPORT - With Thursday's Supreme Court decision, Freeport officials instructed attorneys to begin preparing legal documents to seize three pieces of waterfront property along the Old Brazos River from two seafood companies for construction of an $8 million private boat marina.
The court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that cities may bulldoze people's homes or businesses to make way for shopping malls or other private development. The decision gives local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.
"This is the last little piece of the puzzle to put the project together," Freeport Mayor Jim Phillips said of the project designed to inject new life in the Brazoria County city's depressed downtown area.
Over the years, Freeport's lack of commercial and retail businesses has meant many of its 13,500 residents travel to neighboring Lake Jackson, which started as a planned community in 1943, to spend money. But the city is hopeful the marina will spawn new economic growth.
"This will be the engine that will drive redevelopment in the city," City Manager Ron Bottoms said.
Lee Cameron, director of the city's Economic Development Corp., said the marina is expected to attract $60 million worth of hotels, restaurants and retail establishments to the city's downtown area and create 150 to 250 jobs. He said three hotels, two of which have "high interest," have contacted the city about building near the marina.
"It's all dependent on the marina," Cameron said. "Without the marina, (the hotels) aren't interested. With the marina, (the hotels) think it's a home run."
Since September 2003, the city has been locked in a legal battle to acquire a 300-by-60-foot tract of land along the Old Brazos River near the Pine Street bridge as well as a 200-foot tract and 100-foot tract along the river through eminent domain from Western Seafood Co. and Trico Seafood Co.
Eminent domain is the right of a government to take private property for public use upon payment of the fair market value.
The tracts of land would be used for a planned 800- to 900-slip marina to be built by Freeport Marina, a group that that includes Dallas developer Hiram Walker Royall. He would buy the property from the city and receive a $6 million loan from the city to develop the project.
Freeport Marina would then invest $1 million in the project and contribute a 1,100-foot tract of land, valued at $750,000, to it before receiving the loan.
Western Seafood spokesman Wright Gore III said the wholesale shrimp company was disappointed with the Supreme Court decision, but believes the ruling does not apply to the city's eminent domain proceedings.
He said there is a provision in state law that allows residents of a city to a circulate a petition to call a vote on whether the city can take property using eminent domain.
"(This) is far, far from over," Gore said. "(We) would have liked to have seen a victory on the federal level, but it is by no means a settled issue."
Gore said Western Seafood's 30,000-square-foot processing facility, which sits on the 300-by-60-foot tract, would be forced to close if the land were seized.
That facility earns about $40 million annually, and Western Seafood has been in business in Freeport since 1946, he said.
City officials, however, have said the marina will still allow Western Seafood and Trico Seafood, which did not return telephone calls or e-mail Thursday, to operate their facilities.
In August, U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent ruled against a lawsuit filed by Western Seafood seeking to stop the city's eminent domain proceedings. The seafood company then appealed its case to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, a request that initially was denied.
The appeals court then decided it would take the case, but not rule on it until after the Supreme Court made a ruling on the New London, Conn., case.
My question:
Who decided is more "tax revenue" in the public good?
Ping
Who decided more "tax revenue" is for the public good?
(sorry for typo.)
This is out and out thief, if Walker wants that property then he can buy it for the 30 or 40 million it's worth.
The Wall Street Jurnal reported that the Bush Administration wanted to file a friend of the court brief in support of the city of New London. So property owners should not expect any help from the Bush administration.
I suggest EVERYONE votes Constitutional party next election.
Private boat (read yacht) owners will be using the marina. The shrimp boats used to tie up on Old River (I haven't been there in a couple of years). They have quick access to the Gulf so it is a good place for shrimpers. There is already a marina in the area that has been there for years, Bridge Harbor Marina. As far as Freeport being depressed that is putting it mildly. It is the most pathetic excuse for a town you have ever seen. Squeezed in by chemical plants on the west and the Gulf of Mexico on the east, I can't remember seeing more than a dozen residences there. It is not the kind of place you would want to live. There are some tacky beach houses at nearby Surfside and a few year round people there. Taking this man's business for a marina should be a crime.
Bump!
If the city has 6 million to loan, which I question, then the city should develope a PUBLIC USE marina on existing state property!
Jackbooted Legislator.
So fire the Mayor. What's the big deal? If the whole country is being run like United Enron of America, it's over.
Anytime a legislator runs roughshod over our property rights "in the interest of the common good" and assigns the property rights to some developer, he is a Jackbooted Legislator.
This USSC decision is a FLAGRANT violation of the 5th Amendment. Reassigning private property rights to another private entity (developer) is NOT serving a Public Good.
Pity you can't see that. Your reaction was not unexpected. 'Pod.
The purpose and goal of Bentham's Utilitarianism is to provide a guide for those in public office. If Ethical Theory class missed that, then the situation is easily remedied. Ten seconds of reflection and then we can move on and fix this country.
I think HUGE pressure has to be put on the SCOTUS to reverse their own decision and FAST! Otherwise, what's the point of the Constitution if the government at both the state and federal level ignore it and trample over our rights?!
The public good is always being served when jobs and industry are created. Ping me when the Blue Meanies decide to steal someone's waterfront land so that they can build themselves a private mansion with a view.
Without ED a government cannot expand space or function to serve the populace. While I think this decision wrong on its merits, the elimination of ED, which will never happen, would only cause more, and much broader problems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.