Posted on 10/17/2006 10:48:18 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
FORT WORTH -- David Van Os, Democratic candidate for state attorney general, proposed a state constitutional amendment Monday that would allow the use of eminent domain to seize property only in cases that involve public safety and security.
The San Antonio lawyer made the announcement to about 50 supporters at a rally in front of the Tarrant County Courthouse.
It was the 250th county courthouse Van Os has visited this year as part of his "whistle-stop tour" of all 254 county courthouses in Texas that ends Friday in Austin.
Van Os said his proposed amendment is a direct response to the Trans-Texas Corridor, a planned network of toll roads, freeways and rail lines that would be built in part on land seized via eminent domain. The amendment would prohibit the use of eminent domain to acquire private property for economic reasons.
"That's not democracy. That's dictatorship," Van Os said.
The proposed amendment also calls for banning the creation of a toll road in any county where voters haven't approved the creation of such a system.
Democratic candidates statewide have used their opposition to the Trans-Texas Corridor to rally voters.
Van Os, shouting over the roar of passing cars on Weatherford Street in downtown Fort Worth, touted plans to investigate allegations of price-gouging by oil, electric and insurance companies.
"Come Jan. 1, when I get sworn in, I'm coming after you," Van Os said, referring to oil companies.
Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is running for his second term, investigated complaints of high gas prices in late 2005 and said that, for the most part, higher prices were not the result of gouging but rather of market forces.
Democrat David Van Os, a San Antonio lawyer,
campaigns for attorney general on the steps of
the Tarrant County Courthouse on Monday.
Pro TTC Ping!
This is a pro Trans-Texas Corridor ping list.
Please let me know by Freepmail if you want on or off the list.
well I'll be darned, a Democrat with some sense in his head!
Oct. 17, 2006, 10:08PM
Carole Keeton Strayhorn: 'Beyond'
Associated Press
Details of a television campaign ad from independent gubernatorial candidate Carole Keeton Strayhorn:
TITLE: "Beyond"
LENGTH: 30 seconds.
PRODUCER: Alex Castellanos, media consultant; WF of R Inc., media placement.
SCRIPT: Carole Keeton Strayhorn: "Tolls across Texas?
"Governor Perry's plan is beyond anything we've ever known. It's the largest land grab in Texas history. A deal to seize more than a half million acres of private property and hand it over to a foreign company, so they can charge us tolls.
"I believe Texas property belongs to Texans, not foreign companies. And I believe we ought to protect our property rights and stop this land grab. Austin doesn't.
"It's time to shake Austin up."
KEY IMAGES: The ad is shot in the same style as all of Strayhorn's have been so far – the candidate wearing a red blouse under a black jacket, standing before a white background and talking to the camera.
ANALYSIS: Gov. Rick Perry's Trans-Texas Corridor has been contentious – farmers and ranchers oppose selling their land for the massive transportation network, drivers oppose having to pay tolls and others have criticized the contractor's European ties. The issue is an easy target for Perry challengers and Strayhorn has led the charge against it. By putting the issue on television, she's taking it directly to voters – who may not have been paying close attention before now – and offering them an alternative. Strayhorn continues to poll below Perry, but she hopes that ads like this will breakdown enough of his support to give her an edge.
FACT CHECK: She calls the project the "largest land grab in Texas history." While the state plan could eventually include as much as 4,000 miles of highway, the state authorized 7,500 miles of farm-to-market roads in 1946. That grew to 35,000 miles in 1962 and included 41,755 miles by 1989. Strayhorn's campaign argues that the farm-to-market road system is still smaller than Perry's corridor because the rural roadways are not as wide as the swath planned for the new highway system.
Strayhorn contends the land will be "handed over to a foreign company." The contractor, Cintra-Zachry, is a consortium made up of Spain-based Cintra investing 65 percent and San Antonio-based Zachry Construction in for 35 percent. They've partnered with 16 other firms, which include two European-based companies.
Texas will own and control the roads, but Cintra-Zachry will maintain the roads and collect the tolls.
Strayhorn herself issued a press release in 2001 saying the Texas Department of Transportation should build more toll roads. Her campaign said she never envisioned such a sweeping toll road plan as Perry's Trans-Texas Corridor plan, adding that the transportation department's budget has increased enough in recent years to build roads without tolls.
According to Van Os reasoning we'd never have been able to build the highway system we already have. This isn't like taking land from a private owner to another private owner to build a shopping center that would increase property values and tax revenue. Transportation links are vital for many reasons including economics and security. According to Van Os' theory a rural county between two large cities could block a road connecting those two cities just because the residents of that county don't want the road. Transportation systems require continuous rights of way.
Woah, there pardner! Read that first line again...
"allow the use of eminent domain to seize property only in cases that involve public safety and security."
So, who do you think is going to determine "public safety and security"?
Then he says he's going to investigate oil company gouging. Been there, done that. Nothing found. Just another way to fleece the taxpayers under the guise of "Look. I'm doing my job".
He's just another Jim Hightower populist wannabe. Anyone want to bet how bad a margin Van Os will lose by? Here's one of his billboards.
Okay, sorry I should have read more carefully. It's just I heard some stuff that made sense, and I assumed he was a conservative Democrat who was going to help move the party to a more level headed platform and people. I'll go back to my room now.
You obviously didn't follow the link I put in the first comment. He was Bill Burkett's lawyer. You Don't remember Bill Burkett? He was the source of the Bush Air National Guard "memo" Dan Rather was quoting two years ago on 60 Minutes II. He is one of the whacko left wing DemocRATS who hang out with the Austin DemocRAT crowd.
Oh, I didn't know that. I was just stunned to see a Democrat that I thought had sense.
Van Os is also a member of CPUSA.
He is right up there with Soros when it comes to Texas.
Van Os is co-founder of the Texas Progressive Populist Caucus of the Democratic Party.
http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/5810/1/232
Trans-Texas Corridor PING!
BTTT
bump.
To see how the people of Texas really feel about this issue, I would like to see the entire TTC package go before the voters in a special election.
BTW; I don't want to hear about how We've already voted for it. I don't think the Legislature was very honest in the way it was presented before.
Those with a homestead(or business) on the property should be given M&L and probably receive a premium compared to the investors that swoop in after any plans to take the land for public use.
Thanks for the ping!
You're welcome. :-)
My initial reaction to Van Os is he has a basic misunderstanding of imminent domain. Its proper, constitutional use IS for such things as roads, powerline and pipeline right of way, so one greedhead in the way doesn't hold up a straightline project. Public safety, perhaps a jail or military base. If you want to argue for better "compensation", I'm with you, some of the applicants in Kelo were paid nearly a third less than the evaluation New London had placed on the "blighted" property for tax purposes before the city decided to steal the land.
The comparison to farm to market roads doesn't resonate here. I drive such roads every day, share them with farmers moving wide rigs from one field to another. Without exception, they will pull onto the shoulder, field, whatever is there at first opportunity and let me by.
This monster is going to force farmers with split land to go 20, 30 miles out of the way to get to a field they used to plow a straight line through. Think the imminent domain payment will factor in future added fuel/time costs? No comarison with FM two lanes.
In some cases it might make sense for land owners to swap land to consolidate properties on one side or the other. Such swaps can be done tax free.
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.
