Texas Legislature May Place Private Property Rights Question in Hands of Voters

Representative Corte Moves to Defend Private Property Rights

In response to Thursday's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to allow local governments to seize homes and businesses against the owner's will for economic development, Rep. Frank Corte, Jr. (San Antonio) will file a constitutional amendment in the special session to defend the rights of property owners in Texas. The legislation will limit a local governmental entity's power of eminent domain, preventing them from bulldozing residencies in favor of projects for private developers. "The power of eminent domain was never intended to be used to line the pockets of private companies," Corte remarked of the ruling.

Rep. Corte will ask the governor to add the issue to the call of the current special session, allowing the legislature to consider the matter. In order for the constitutional amendment to appear on the November ballot, it is critical that the issue be addressed without delay.

"The right to own and use property is inherent to a free society. When a government decides they know how to use private property better than the individual, private property rights cease to exist," noted Rep. Corte.

The Supreme Court case Kelo v. The City of New London involved a 1998 case where the City of New London, Connecticut condemned several private residences to allow for a redevelopment plan in conjunction with the construction of a major pharmaceutical research facility.

But could the DUmmies hold themselves in? I have strong doubts, it is not in their nature to be tolerant. They would have to break or their heads would explode.

I've only lurked over there a few times, but when I did it was readily apparent that some of them are armed and intend to stay that way.

I'd be willing to establish common ground, as long as they realize that ultimately, on this issue, we all have the same enemy .

Cat loving Texan
Our property taxes are too high and we are going to get nailed with a huge tax increase to lower them ...

pardon me, but ???

Have you seen the solutions to school finance??? .5-1c increase to sales tax. More taxable categories added. We are going to get nailed. BUT in general Texas Republicans have been on the right track. WE DO NEED TO NIP THIS TAX RAPE IN THE BUD

I Believe that the Ball Park is owned by the City of Arlington and is not owned by the Texas Rangers. I believe they have a lease agreement with the City.

In Connecticutt the City Council condemned property so that private developers could build high rise Condos and shopping centers, etc. The Council claimed that this would generate more taxes for the City therefore it was for the public good. The City doesn't own any of this land in Conn, nor will the public unless they buy a Condo. I think the Supreme Court is losing it's collective minds.

I Believe that the Ball Park is owned by the City of Arlington and is not owned by the Texas Rangers. I believe they have a lease agreement with the City.

Yep, it's a lease deal with a buy out option to the Rangers.... thus they can own the entire thing for a pittance of the original cost.

---4.2 Option to Purchase. Upon the retirement or defeasance of the Bonds, the Rangers will have the option to purchase the fee title to the Facility Lease Tract and all improvements thereon for $60 million. The base rent and additional rent payments made under the Facility Lease and, in an amount not to exceed $1,500,000.00 per year, the sums expended and costs incurred by the Rangers for the maintenance and lease-related expenses of the Facilities will be fully credited against the option price for the fee title to the Facility Lease Tract and the Facilities. As additional consideration for the exercise of the option, if the option is so exercised, the Rangers agree to maintain their major league baseball franchise upon the Facility Lease Tract for 10 years following the exercise of the option.---
[end snip]

Thats only 5 of 9 of the "collective minds" that are lost...

It appears that they are pretty entrenched in their seats there...

Its the 4 that dissented that ruling, that one or more are going to be retiring...And getting them replaced with people who will carry on that conservative interpretive torch will be the nastiest uphill battle we will ever see...

Some may have thought it was over with what we just went through in the lower courts...You ain't seen nothing yet...

You're right. The Libs are fighting for their lives. They control the Judiciary branch of the government which in most cases is unelected and unaccountable to the electorate. In Texas we elect Judges, in most of the other states they are appointed for life. I'm for having all Judges run for election even Supreme Court Judges. Of course, we'll have to clean up the election process first.
Instead of the inner cities having 10 votes per person, we'd have to reduce them to the one we get.
The battle has just begun. The Conservatives in this country aren't going to be able to turn out for one election and sit on their principles of the next. The battle is not going to be won in one or two years. We have to keep fighting. One thing about the Libs, they never give up, no matter how many times they're knocked down. We just have to keep knocking them down.

How long are the bonds for?

I don't know. I guess one could find it via google. I don't know if they will ever exercise the option but it surely offers what could be a valuable parcel of land as it sits next to Six Flags over Texas and the area has grown tremendously.

Have you seen the solutions to school finance???

None of the "solutions" include an appraisal cap, without which any effort to cut property taxes in pissing into the wind. Unless there is a cap on both appraisals and rates, the corrupt thugs will just increase the uncapped side to their merry content.

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.