Posted on 06/19/2007 5:08:18 AM PDT by Jarhead1957
June 18, 2007 Texas Governor Vetoes Eminent Domain Reform All Texans Remain Vulnerable to Abuse Arlington, Va.-On Friday, June 15, 2007, Texas Governor Rick Perry vetoed HB 2006, an eminent domain reform measure that overwhelmingly passed both chambers of the Texas Legislature. The bill was designed to close a loophole that remained from an earlier bill Perry signed two years ago in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous Kelo v. City of New London decision. Perry becomes only the fourth governor to veto an eminent domain bill since Kelo. In the three other states, however, reform still passed when the Iowa Legislature overrode one veto, New Mexico’s executive signed other reform legislation this year and Arizona reformed its laws by citizen initiative. “With this veto, Governor Perry has left every home, farm, ranch and small business owner vulnerable to the abuse of eminent domain,” said Steven Anderson, director of the Institute for Justice’s Castle Coalition, a national grassroots advocacy group committed to ending the private-to-private transfer of property using eminent domain. The bill would have closed the large loophole that remained after the enactment of SB 7, the 2005 legislation that allows local authorities to forcibly acquire private property for the purpose of so-called “slum” or “blight” removal. Under Texas law, the terms “slum” and “blight” are defined so broadly that they can be applied to any property, meaning no one’s property is safe. HB 2006 required, with certain limited exceptions, that all takings be made for a “public use,” which would have stopped eminent domain abuse throughout the state. HB 2006 also included procedural and compensation changes, and it was the latter that Perry cited as the reason for his veto. “Compensation concerns were totally overblown by government agencies,” Anderson said. “Comprehensive protection against eminent domain abuse for all Texans was scuttled because of unfounded fears that property acquisitions would cost substantially more. Dollars drive the abuse, and now dollars drive this veto. In both cases, the property owners are the ones who end up getting hurt.”
That will be a “Bring All The Rope In Texas” moment when
the Sheeple wake-up...
lol!
I dare say....the ropes will come from more places than just Texas!
He should receive the FULL market value of the property concerned. Not just the piece that the government wants to take for it's purposes.
Do you think it fair that the government can currently take a strip of land out of a parcel I own and pay full market value for the strip taken without giving ANY consideration at all to what their taking will do to my overall operation?
“And the land grab marches on,,,gotta have that “ROAD”...”
Nah, it is RINO rick getting paid off. Follow the money. His kid got hired by the company that wanted to buy the Texas lotto. Guess who his boss is? Phil Graham. Husband of ex Enron director Wendy Graham.
I hope someone is taking notes.
Sad isn’t it? What are we the people to do? Makes me glad I’m old...
True Dat Money,,,They better Grab-n-Run when folks find out it ain’t just another “ROAD”...
How would USSC decision about a Connecticut case possibly affect Texas seeing that Texas has had a whole different deal since the beginning.
Assuming that the land needed includes the entire property, should the property owner receive market value or something higher?
Of course I can understand why he'd veto this. His pet project I-69 from hell would be essentially a private property enterprise.
It that circumstance he should receive market value for the land and be reimbursed for any damages (costs) the taking caused his operations.
Now there is another nice side-step.
I don't know how I could have answered more directly.
Why don't you just come right out and say whatever it is you so obviously want to say.
The difference between willing seller and forced seller ought to be the recompense any other thief is supposed to pay Biblically.
In a sense I have said what I want to say. Or, the legislation and the veto of that legislation speak for themselves. Property owners are not entitled to more than market value, although most of them, most often, get something reasonable above market and sometimes some get amounts unreasonably above market.
So I take it that you think it is alright for the government to take my property without any consideration for the costs such a taking imposes on me. Costs such as, for example, finding another suitable location for my business and moving it there.
What makes you say that?
ROFL
Do you think it fair that the government can currently take a strip of land out of a parcel I own and pay full market value for the strip taken without giving ANY consideration at all to what their taking will do to my overall operation?
I had some 52 acres in LA that a portion [appox. 32 acres] was needed for a roadway expansion. The taking would have left no egress/ingress to the remaining 17 acres. I had the option to retain or the state would purchase the remaining acreage at full market value.
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.