Anyone that thinks politics isn’t a bloodsport needs to talk to Rep. Beverly Woolley, R-Houston, who is being trashed for allowing an amendment to an eminent domain bill that is now on the governor’s desk.
The amendment, by Sen. Glenn Hegar Jr., R-Katy, allows property owners to sue for “diminished access” to their property. In other words, if your pet project causes a business owner to shut his doors because of losses, he can sue for damages.
Cities and counties across the state have been lobbying the governor to oppose the bill.
Why are they lobbying against this bill so hard? They claim that it is because it will add costs to the taxpayer but in reality, they just don’t want anything that even hints at limiting government growth. What does the bill do?
- It has strong language protecting the rights of Texas Property owners
- It mandates “fair market” offer be made before starting condemnation
- It mandates public condemnation hearings and mandates that ALL appraisals be made public
- It mandates that property owners attorney’s fees be paid
It adds protection and hopefully makes government think long and hard before taking someone’s private property. Sen. Hegar’s amendment strengthens those protections.
Hegar said he offered the amendment because he wanted to ensure adequate protections for property owners and is stunned by the uproar. The amendment was identical to a bill he carried that failed in committee this past session.
In a classic example of what opponents will do to kill a bill when they have no valid reason to, they are accusing the bill’s author of letting this amendment through for personal gain.
Black, who said Woolley refused to strip the Hegar amendment from her bill even though the governor warned her he might veto the whole legislation, took a hard line: “The governor does not believe that anyone in public office should use that office to benefit themselves,” Black said. Asked if the governor believed Woolley had used her office to do that, Black replied: “If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck.”
Woolley had an obligation to publicly disclose that she could benefit personally from a bill she was pushing — and to abstain from voting, Black said.
Note that she did not add the amendment, in fact, the amendment wasn’t even added in the House. But these guys will stoop to any level to stop anything that has a remote possibility of slowing down government growth.
This is shameful behavior and should not be tolerated by the Republicans, especially doing it to one of their own.
The governor should have enough of a spine to ignore the city and county lobbying efforts and sign this landowner protection bill into law. Please call Gov. Perry at 512.463.2000.
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
8 Responses to “Hatchet Job On Eminent Domain Protection Bill”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
Man, at first I thought you were opposed to this bill.
I think it is a good bill and I hope the Gov. signs it.
“The governor should have enough of a spine to ignore”
‘Governor’ and ’spine’ in the same sentence? Isn’t there some grammar rule that prohibits that?
Sounds like the bill’s opponents are using this as a “copout”.
I called Gov. Perry’s office this afternoon and as soon as I mentioned the bill the lady said she would add me to her list and then hung up before I could say anything else.
Sounds like someone is tired of hearing from the people who helped keep him in office. How much elitism can there be in one office?
#4 Kansas
That is exactly what happened when I called. So…I called back and asked her to please add to the note that I was very unhappy with the governor’s office attacking a fellow Republican.
“How much elitism can there be in one office?”
Enough to go around… Texas sized elitism!
This is gut check time for Rick Perry. If he vetoes the bill, then he is officially aligned with local government anti-property rights prima donnas.
Let’s get one thing off the table from the get go. Neither the Heger Amendment, the governor’s veto threat or any other opposition has anything to do with Wooley’s husband are the Harrisburg BRT plan. The penultimate paragraph’s exhortation to ignore city, county, MUD and other governmental entities lobbying is the crux. Question is, are the Republican legislators and governor MORE bought by construction and other industry interests or by the municipal and other leeches. It’s a toss up isn’t it?
I am not a condemnation lawyer, nor a particular takings expert (though I do consider Richard Epstein as a personal friend and former mentor). Much is wrong with many of the aspects of the unamended bill, which a true conservative would have vetoed and called the special session and insist legislators do it right (along Institute for Justice (”IJI”) drat outlines). That having been said, and despite all the carve-out exemption of the bill, as a governor with no prospects of a better bill, I would have signed it before the Heger Amendment. And yes, I have read the amended provisions. In the encapsulated “purpose” discussed above, the Heger amendment — whether it benefits Taste of Texas or the Armiture — sounds noble, pro-property-owner and damn reasonable. The devil, unfortunately, is always in the details.
Whether Taste of Texas’ 35-foot frontage loss and impairment to at least another forty-foot entrance, or the Westpark “University Line” closing off all the Chomical’s truck bays, the potential “inverse condemnation” lawsuits are possible without the Heger provisions. Texas state law has always permitted land-owner suit if either color of title or access and use are affected by private or PUBLIC land use, regulation or construction. The amended bill adds nothing except it would codify in one place virtually all the takings’ law in Texas. However, such legislative absorption of the common law land owners’ rights — JOINED WITH VENALLY HEIN OUS EXEMPTIONS for TTC or other contemplated “world-class” projects — messes up some legal tools land owners now may exercise for a reverse condemnation, temporary or permanent.
Why, as governor I’d strike the Heger amendment by line item or veto the amended bill entirely, are:
1) insufficient “reading” or the Heger provisions before the majority rubber-stamped,
2) receipt of expert testimony of the specific provision with existing Texas statutory and common law of takings, and
3) how those (perceived by me) abridgements in the Heger amendment interplay with the bill’s other exemptions, and
4) city, county, sports authority, etc., etc., lobbying and bureacrats’ political contributions have left finger prints not just over the Heger amendment — THE WHOLE INSUFFICIENT TAKINGS BILL ITSELF.
Since not enough of us voted Kinky and often, we’re stuck for a little over 1000 days with governor Goodhair, Darth Vader on top of the Senate. I’lll be moving to New Haampshire or Alaska if next cycle’s choice is Dew-so-little or Guiellermo Blanco. A pox on all the Rhinos as well.