Eminent Domain News Roundup (from Texas Homeowners Association)

This is just in from the Texas Homeowners Association (CRD joined this service several months ago to stay better informed). Hopefully the EDC crowd here in FB county is paying attention to what other Texas counties are doing:


Texas Homeowner Association News
Eminent Domain News Roundup
A Swift Revolution Across the Nation
Austin, TX -

The Nation


Proposals in Texas, South Dakota, Connecticut and Illinois would restrict the use of eminent domain. . . .
Illinois is one of at least eight states that forbids eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. But lawmakers have scheduled a public hearing on the issue and a separate proposal would make it tougher to use the procedure. . . .
Source: http://www.kwqc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3595214

U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and others want to bar the use of federal funds for any project that involves a locality obtaining the land in a manner that the City of New London, Conn., has sought.
"They're going to have to find their own money, instead of coming to Washington," Sensenbrenner said. Local governments can sometimes qualify for federal transportation or community block grant funds for certain economic development projects. U.S Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has introduced a similar bill in the Senate. . .
Localities, too, can keep this potential abusive power in check. For example, the City of Milford, Conn., is considering an ordinance that would prohibit the city from using its eminent domain power to seize homes for economic development projects benefiting private interests.
Source: http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050714/OPINION01/507140328/1004

New London, Conneticut

Chanting "Let Them Stay" and flying the Revolutionary War era "Don't Tread on Me" flag, close to 500 protesters rallied at New London' s municipal building on July 5, where five years ago, the City Council voted to authorize the use of eminent domain to seize the homes of Susette Kelo and the six other property owners. . .  


Organized by the Washington, D.C., libertarian lobby group, Institute for Justice, it drew supporters from all over the Northeast and as far away as Kentucky and Texas.


Source: http://www.shorepublishing.com/archive/re.aspx?re=801d1983-f526-412a-b725-5a92183d046d

Texas


“The Senate approved a bill to limit state or local governments from taking private property for economic development.


On Tuesday the House approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would do essentially the same thing.


The Senate version is a proposed law. The House measure is a proposed amendment to the Texas Constitution.


Each plan must win approval in the opposite chamber to move forward.” . . .


Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, said lawmakers were moving too fast and needed to study the issue to make sure the law wouldn't hurt state economic development policies.
An amendment to the Senate bill will protect a proposed $650 million Dallas Cowboys stadium slated to be built in Arlington.


Arlington voters agreed in November to pay for half the stadium.


Arlington officials have said they'll need to acquire more than 75 acres of homes, apartment complexes and motels for the stadium.
Source: http://www.news8austin.com/content/your_news/default.asp?ArID=141245

Senate Bill 62, which passed 25-4, is similar to a proposed constitutional amendment passed by the Texas House earlier this week. Now, each chamber can consider the other's legislation. . . .
"While most people, including me, think they knew what public use was, the Supreme Court said that public use could include things like economic development," said Sen. Kyle Janek, R-Houston, the bill's author.


"The ownership of land is precious to the people of this state," Janek said. "I think people value those investments as much as they do anything else, perhaps maybe more than we do our pickup trucks."
Janek said he agreed to an amendment exempting a proposed $650 million stadium in Arlington for the Dallas Cowboys because he thought it was necessary to move the bill forward.
However, he successfully fought off attempts by Houston Republican Sen. Jon Lindsay, who wanted to subject the bill to required review in two to four years.


Houston Democrat Sen. John Whitmire and Janek engaged in a heated debate as Whitmire repeatedly urged lawmakers to slow down and study the issue more, pointing out that local officials wanting to pursue economic development projects are elected officials. . . .


The bill also was amended to make clear what would still qualify as legitimate public uses under eminent domain law in Texas.


For instance, railroads, seaports, airports, public roads and highways are subject to eminent domain laws, as are provisions for utility services, such as the need for an energy pipeline. Governments also could take land for water and wastewater projects, including drainage projects necessary to prevent flooding.
Source: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3265587


Comal County, Texas
Commissioners voted 4-1 Thursday to repudiate any new power the ruling might offer Comal County to seize land for economic development or commercial purposes. . .

The Texas Legislature is working to define or limit its impact here, and Comal County officials decided they wanted to spell out their view for their own constituents so there is no doubt.
“The bottom line from my perspective, and I hope from this commissioners’ court’s perspective, is that this resolution demonstrates to the public that this court doesn’t plan to expand the limited authority to exercise eminent domain granted us in 1925,” Precinct 2 Commissioner Jay Millikin said. “This is a proactive statement of the intent of this court. In my mind, we do not need to wait for the state or federal Supreme Court or legislatures to tell us what to do.” . . .

County Judge Danny Scheel told the court that the Texas state Senate had passed a bill just Wednesday prohibiting taking of private property for economic development purposes. . . .

Scheel argued that Comal County didn’t need to get involved in the issue — that it would be dealt with by legislators at the state and national levels.

Source: http://web.herald-zeitung.com/story.lasso?wcd=13308