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.
If I recall correctly, 11 states have such laws. Refer to post #46, two state reps have introduced a State Constitutional Amendment to do just that, Kelo did at least leave the individual states empowered to limit their own authority o use imminent domain. The proposed bill just hit the hopper Friday, has not at this moment been assigned a HR number, and cannot move in special session without Perry's OK. By Tuesday should be able to look it up under sponsors' names, either Scott Campbell or Frank Cort. We need to flood offices with contacts on this.
The insane ruling by the Supreme Court said that generating more tax revenue is an example of "the public good." How then does taking the private property of one citizen and giving it to another private citizen AND giving the latter private citizen a break from all property taxes constitute ANY public good?
This stinks on ice.
Yes, there comes a time to resist tyranny, whether of the courts or elected "authorities". It comes down to the individual and how much he/she is willing to concede before saying "Here's where I draw the line".
Have you noticed the articles across the nation? Developers and other entities have apparently been waiting for this opportunity and they are wasting no time.
How about a developer that can raise the cash to purchase a rancher's holdings in order to be developed, what's the difference? We have plenty of Real Estate/Developer's mega-companies with enough capital to do that very thing--no sweat. This is going to be real interesting...
In the ruling, Justice Stevens suggested that greater protection against such takings can be remedied by the state legislatures.
The decision simply means that the federal constitution does not prohibit all levels of government within the US from seizing property for transfer to other private parties. It doesn't require that states allow their local government do this. Instead, states may set stricter limits on eminent domain powers exercised by the state and localities within the state.
Could much the same be said of the Pre-Civil War South?
Are we now just slaves?
You will make a very fine serf.
Yeah, but since the President has been silent on the issue, and his spokesman dodged the question when pointedly asked, I don't think there's going to be much help from the White House.
____
Does anyone find it strange that the President was so vocal (and the rest of them) with regards to the Shaivo case and yet this...which is a far bigger deal, IMHO, draws no fire?
Even though I lean left, if there were REAL conservatives in the administration, I wouldn't even care at this point. I don't really have an issue with any of the conservatives on this board, as I am a fierce defender of property rights myself. I'd take real conservatives over neoconservatives or wimpy dems any day of the week.
They're gonna destroy two legitimate businesses so that a bunch of wine-sipping fat b@st@rds will have a place to park their boats! Geez...
Tell me, oh socialist one....how the public good is served when older middle class people are thrown a few thousand dollars and told to vacate their property so that private developers can build $400,000 condominiums? Eminent domain almost ALWAYS targets the middle and lower classes. They take their land and make it impossible for those people to remain in the communities because they've priced them out of the market. How is the public good served when a retired person has their land seized and they see their investment turn to RENT MONEY? Tell me, I REALLY want to know.
The President always panders to the social conservatives. The social conservatives are an easy mark. You can bluster about the sanctity of life without having to actually DO anything about it....and they don't really care about fiscal conservatism as long as there protection for the unborn, people with terminal illnesses (even if they WANT to die) and government sanctioned prayer. Don't expect them to get upset about fiscal issues because that is far, far, down on their list of concerns.
Makes me glad I didn't vote for that Slimy Republican b@st@rd twice.
If the shoe fits.....
Ginsburg and Stevens will retire sometime between 2008-2012 I would think.
We don't need more expansion and the government couldn't even function before ED2:'). Seriously, if it's not what part of "no" don't you understand, in the constitution then it's going to continue to be stretched to fit agendas. No EM just seem much simpler IMO.
You mean like the fascism the SCOTUS just blessed?
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.