The 2011 session--eminent domain protection redux

Sen. Craig Estes has refiled his bill to limit eminent domain takings to projects that are only for public use. Last session, the Senate passed this legislation, but it got caught up in the log-jam of bills that did not pass in the House when time ran out. This time, it is called Senate Bill 180, which redefines “public use” and includes compensation for diminished access. SB 180 also ends land speculation by the government.

Estes said, “I believe one of the most important functions of government is the protection of private property and the interests of property owners. Our ability to own and profit from private property is fundamental to not just our economic liberty, but also our personal liberty."

Here's hoping that this session does not end in the disarray of the previous session, when valuable legislation like this, that was on its way to being passed, was simply lost when time ran out.

Water pipeline lawsuit dismissed--problem of eminent domain by non-profits fronting for profiteering remains

In November, 2009, we covered the new water pipeline of Cross County Water Supply Corp., which will bring water from Burleson County to the Manor area. The 52-mile pipeline was the subject of an American-Statesman article:
http://www.statesman.com/search/content/news/stories/local/2009/11/10/1110travispipe.html

As we previously reported, Cross County is set up as a non-profit. However, behind Cross County are for-profit entities who hope to profit handsomely from selling water for development in the SH 130 area. Quoting the Statesman, “Cross County counts as its customer Blue Water Systems, run by Austin real estate investor Ross Cummings, which has developed wells in Burleson County, said Pat Reilly, a director of Cross County. Blue Water, in turn, has a deal to sell water to publicly traded Southwest Water Co., Reilly said.”

Burleson County landowners Terry and Linda Ausley would not give permission for Cross County to survey their land, Cross County sued them, and they counter-sued, saying that Cross County “was formed . . . as a Texas nonprofit corporation for the sole purpose of fraudulently providing a mechanism for obtaining easements below market rate via threat of condemnation for purposes of securing a pipeline location . . .”

Since the suits were filed, Cross County did not cross the Ausleys’ land, but went around it.

Ausleys’ lawsuit dismissed

Thanks to Madeleine Hensley for letting us know that the Ausleys’ case was dismissed and getting a copy of the opinion.

On April 16, Federal Judge Sam Sparks dismissed the Ausleys’ lawsuit. The case had been transferred to Federal Court because the Ausleys had alleged a violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Because Sparks found no RICO violation, he dismissed the case. Further, while not actually ruling on the matter, Sparks’ opinion recognized that Cross County DID have condemnation authority.

This brings us to the underlying problem in this situation: a for-profit water corporation can set up a non-profit corporation to condemn land and sell bonds for a water pipeline from which the principals will profit greatly.

This is a state law problem. The Legislature needs to change state law so that for-profit corporations cannot set up non-profit corporations as fronts to profit off of the water resources of the state. Water supplies, or lack thereof, are becoming a bigger and bigger issue. Some officials and legislators are already saying that the state needs to revamp its water policy, given the finite supply of groundwater and the increasing demands on it.

One of the major reforms that is needed is some way to keep rapacious water profiteers from stripping a region’s water resources and using eminent domain against property owners. This is an eminent domain abuse that the Legislature needs to put a stop to.

TFB--"fervor for private property rights justice has not cooled"

Thanks to Martha Estes for calling attention to the Texas Farm Bureau article by Mike Barnett on the upcoming eminent domain battle in the next session.

http://www.txfb.org/newsmanager/templates/TXFBTemplate.aspx?articleid=6156&zoneid=122

Barnett points out that the TFB's endorsed candidate Hutchison experienced a disappointing loss to Rick Perry; then he reiterates the determination of the TFB "to achieve true eminent domain reform. . . . TFB's fervor for private property rights justice has not cooled."

Barnett does not think that a Perry victory in November is a slam-dunk. Whoever wins, the TFB is going to continue their property rights fight, following the success of getting Prop. 11 into the Texas constitution last year. However, "Prop. 11, which prohibits the government from acquiring land for non-public use, was only the first step." Now, the TFB will continue to work for additional protections in the areas of fair market value, loss of access, and the right to repurchase.

"We must lay the groundwork now to remind our state representatives and senators of the importance this issue holds for all Texans. . . . When they go into session next January, state legislators must quickly affirm the language from last session’s SB 18, which unanimously passed the Senate but was tied up by the voter ID wrangling in the House as the session closed."

"Any delay could be fatal to our efforts. If whoever is elected governor chooses to veto the reform bill, it would take every remaining day of the session to accomplish an override. There are many who are opposed to this effort to protect private property rights who will be seeking derailment at every opportunity."

"With the disappointments of the last two sessions, it would seem the deck is stacked against Farm Bureau in our eminent domain efforts. Not so. We are a grassroots organization of true believers. The fire to protect our rights as property owners burns deep within. We’ve come very close to achieving our goals two times. . . . The third time will be the charm."

Water profiteering on the backs of rural landowners

If you are in the Eastern Williamson/Travis area, another project to be aware of is the new water pipeline of Cross County Water Supply Corp. This project was covered by the Statesman on November 10: “Pipeline nearing approval to deliver water to Manor area—Project is part of race to bring water for development near Texas 130.”

http://www.statesman.com/search/content/news/stories/local/2009/11/10/1110travispipe.html

At the time this article was written, approval by the Travis County commissioners had not yet been secured, but they have since approved the project. Up to $40 million in tax-exempt bonds would be used to build a 52-mile water pipeline from Burleson County through Lee and Williamson counties to the Eastern Travis County area. Please click on the link to the article to see a map.

The Statesman notes that the project “is part of a lucrative race to serve the semirural area around Texas 130. . . [T]he transformation of the land into subdivisions and shopping centers is contingent on the shipment of water, and whoever delivers it could profit handsomely.”

Cross County is set up as a non-profit. However, behind Cross County are for-profit entities hoping to “profit handsomely” on the backs of rural property owners. The Statesman says, “Cross County counts as its customer Blue Water Systems, run by Austin real estate investor Ross Cummings, which has developed wells in Burleson County, said Pat Reilly, a director of Cross County. Blue Water, in turn, has a deal to sell water to publicly traded Southwest Water Co., Reilly said.”

Burleson County landowners Terry and Linda Ausley have been sued by Cross County because they would not give permission for the company “to perform topographical, environmental and geotechnical surveys on their land as a prelude to acquiring an easement for the water pipeline.”

The Ausleys have countersued, saying that Cross County “was formed . . . as a Texas nonprofit corporation for the sole purpose of fraudulently providing a mechanism for obtaining easements below market rate via threat of condemnation for purposes of securing a pipeline location . . .”

Fraud is already connected with this project. The Statesman notes, “The water would come from groundwater leases in Burleson County originally acquired by Metropolitan Water Co., whose president and founder is William Scott Carlson. In 2004, Cummings put up $1 million to cover Carlson's bail after he was jailed for violating the terms of his probation in a fraud case.”

Prop 11 passes overwhelmingly--analysis from Corridor Watch

Thanks to Linda and David Stall for all their work against the Corridor for many years and for their recent analysis of the passage of Prop 11. As they point out, Prop 11, with more protection against eminent domain, passed by the largest margin of any proposition on the ballot, with a four to one margin. Over 80 percent of the voters were for Prop 11.

Corridor Watch says:
"This vote provides Texas property owners greater protection from the kind of eminent domain abuse opportunities created by the United States Supreme Court ruling in Kelo vs. City of New London. It makes it harder for the state to expand the number of entities that can exercise eminent domain power. It limits excessive use of eminent domain in the name of eliminating urban blight. And, most importantly it sends a strong message to the Governor and Legislature that Texans take private property rights very seriously.

"With Proposition 11 passed, additional protections are still required to fully protect private property rights. The legislature needs to revisit the kind of protections that would have been created under House Bill 2006 as introduced, overwhelmingly passed and vetoed by Governor Perry in 2007. Property owners deserve full and just compensation for property seized by the government. Property owners also deserve compensation for diminished access that results from the use of eminent domain.

"In vetoing HB-2006 in 2007 Governor Perry said that it would cost the state too much. We believe that seizing private property should be hard, should be expensive, and should only be used as the last resort.

"Projects like the Trans Texas Corridor (TTC) need to stand on their own merits and not on the state's ability to take land away from private owners at costs well below market value. And most importantly, state power should never be used to seize private property for the purpose of generating state revenue, whether it's by lease, sale, or toll concession.

"The TTC was always about generating revenue first and providing transportation second. Proposition 11 is another step forward in our effort to ensure that the threat on private property created by the TTC (no matter what new name it may be given) never returns."

Corridor Watch and other property rights advocates like the Texas Farm Bureau are ready to come back at the beginning of next session to try to get additional eminent domain protections. The passage of Prop 11 makes this job easier than it would have been if Prop 11 had not passed. If the voters had not passed Prop 11, it would have sent a message to our elected officials that the people were not really that interested in getting more protection against eminent domain.

Texas Farm Bureau--FOR Prop. 11

Regan Beck, associate legislative director of the Texas Farm Bureau, spoke to the Coupland Civic Organization at their October 26 meeting. He covered the issues of interest to farmers, ranchers, and other rural residents during the last session of the Legislature.

Regarding trying to protect property rights, he called it “all in all, a good session, but not a great session.” The TFB’s efforts were partially successful against eminent domain. Regarding the Trans-Texas Corridor, he said, “We want to take it off the books. We were so close at the end of the session in getting this [and other things that were in HB 300, the TxDOT Sunset bill], but it fell through.”

He noted that HB 300 would have repealed the Trans-Texas Corridor. It also included diminished access protection in eminent domain actions. Since HB 300 failed to pass, the Legislature had to extend the existence of TxDOT during the special session and will have to deal with TxDOT’s Sunset process during the next regular session.

The good news—TFB is pleased with $30 million in aid that passed for rural Texans, including funds for boll weevil eradication, feral hog control, and repair for earthen flood control dams. [Ed Komandosky, secretary/treasurer of Brushy Creek Water Control and Improvement District, spoke to the last meeting of the Coupland Civic Organization about the funding and repair work on the dams in our area.]

Beck calls SB 18 “a great bill that included good faith negotiation to treat the landowner as fairly as possible, by negotiating in good faith upfront before the property is condemned.” SB 18 also included more disclosures for the property owner and a ten-year buy-back provision, whereby if the condemning entity did not use the property within ten years, the owner could buy it back for the same price he was paid for it. Unfortunately, SB 18 was one of the bills left unpassed when time ran out at the end of the session.

Much of the problems that property owners have with condemning entities are not even with governments, but with others who have been given the power of condemnation, such as pipeline companies. There was a provision that the comptroller would be notified of all entities that have power to condemn. Then, if an entity does not sign up with comptroller, it loses its condemnation power. Unfortunately, this was not passed.

Beck said, “HJR 14 was passed and is Proposition 11 on the ballot. We still need to do more on eminent domain, but Prop 11 helps.” When asked if the TFB was prepared to start early next session to get more eminent domain protections, he said yes. He noted that this last session, it took too long to get more protections through the Senate--too long to get some Senators on board--and then the legislation failed in the last-minute gridlock. In this coming session, Beck hopes that the Senators already will be prepared to support protections, so that legislation can move through faster.

Proposition 11--a needed first step for protection against eminent domain

Some are against Prop. 11 because it does not contain strong enough protections against eminent domain. However, such entities as the Texas Farm Bureau and Corridor Watch are for Prop. 11 because it is a first step. The TFB and other advocates intend to go back next session of the Legislature and push for even stronger protections. Below are excerpts from Corridor Watch's David and Linda Stall:

"Proposition 11 strikes back against the Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo v. City of New London ruling that private property can be taken by the government for the private benefit of another for economic development purposes or increasing tax revenue.

"If passed, Proposition 11 would specifically prohibit the use of eminent domain power 'for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenue.'

"This was a very serious threat in the original Trans Texas Corridor plan. When that plan became law in 2003 it included the power to take land for ancillary facilities for the express purpose of generating revenue. Since then the legislature removed that sweeping authority. Proposition 11 would ensure that such power is never restored.

"Additionally, Proposition 11 would restrict the expansion of eminent domain authority to more public or private entities; and, would limit excessive use of eminent domain to eliminate urban blight.

"Even if Proposition 11 passes, additional protections will be required to fully protect our private property rights. In 2007 the legislature overwhelmingly passed law (HB-2006) that would have provided much needed protection. Unfortunately, our Governor objected to granting those protections and vetoed that law.

"What message will you send the Legislature? The votes cast FOR or AGAINST Proposition 11 will serve as an indicator of public interest in protecting private property rights. If the measure passes strongly it will signal a continued public demand for protection of private property. If the measure fails, it will signal a loss of public concern over private property rights.

"Those of us who still want to see strong protections(like HB-2006) adopted into statute need Proposition 11 to pass by a large margin."

Restrictions on eminent domain No. 11 on Nov. ballot

An eminent domain constitutional amendment will be on the November 3 ballot. Proposition 11 will help prevent in Texas what happened in the 2005 Kelo case, where the U.S. Supreme Court upheld taking property from one private owner and giving it to another private owner, for the purpose of economic development. This amendment to the Texas constitution will limit the taking of private property to a public use, not private development.

Hutchison makes Trans-Texas Corridor an issue in gubernatorial race

Thanks to Martha Estes for alerting us to the Trans-Texas Corridor popping up in the Perry-Hutchison race. As explained in the Dallas Morning News transportation blog


http://transportationblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/08/hutchison-jabs-perry-again-ove.html


KBH has started a Corridor clock running on one of her websites.

http://texans.forkay.com/pages/clock

"Hutchison's campaign team is betting that it [the TTC] will be an issue. They've been sending out messages in the past couple days highlighting what they say is Perry's stubborn support for his Trans Texas Corridor idea.

"Apparently, the Governor hasn't sufficiently disavowed the program. . . .
Still, the Legislature left town this year without extending the state's authority to make private contracts for toll roads. Without the ability to partner with private companies to build and operate toll roads, the TTC -- whatever it is called -- is as worthless as last year's bets on the Derby. Right?

"Where Hutchison's team is on firmer footing is in questioning whether Perry has ever truly disavowed the TTC. He never has. He bowed to the political reality that it wouldn't fly, but he has never apologized or retreated from his position that it was a good idea.

"What he has done . . . is say that he and TxDOT made mistakes in the way they presented the idea, essentially scaring the holy business out of farmers and ranchers who saw on the early corridor maps huge expanses of lands subject to eminent domain.

"[I]t is exactly those folks -- the landowners, and not so much the toll road opponents -- that team Hutchison is attempting to reach with its latest barrage of thrusts at Perry and the Trans Texas Corridor.

"Will transportation play a big role in your vote for governor next year? If so, are you sufficiently mad about tolls to hold Perry accountable?

"[H]ere is the gist of the Hutchison attack on Perry, from campaign spokesman Jeff Sadosky:
'Texans deserve a straight yes or no from Rick Perry on whether he still supports his controversial Trans-Texas Corridor plan to confiscate nearly 600,000 acres of land. His refusal to say is just another attempt by Rick Perry to cover-up his record of doing what's right for himself but wrong for Texas.'"

More between-session news--eminent domain; Perry signs non-existent document

As the end of the session approached, there were two pieces of eminent domain legislation that had a chance of getting through—SB 18 and HJR 14.

SB 18 WITH SEVERAL EMINENT DOMAIN PROTECTIONS DIED

SB 18 was the bill desired by organizations like the Texas Farm Bureau. It called for more transparency in the condemnation process, compensation for diminished access, and the right for the owner to buy back property at its selling price if it was not used for the stated purpose within a certain time period.

SB 18 passed the Senate, passed out of committee to the full House, and was caught in the last-minute logjam caused by the delaying tactics on the House floor to avoid bringing up the voter ID bill.

HJR 14 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT PRIVATE-TO-PRIVATE PROPERTY TAKINGS WILL BE ON THE BALLOT

Even though SB 18 died, HJR 14 calling for a constitutional amendment passed the House and the Senate and will appear on the November ballot. If approved by voters, it would prevent in Texas the situation that happened in the Kelo case, where the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the process of taking property from one private owner and giving it to another private owner. HJR limits the taking of private property to a public taking.

GROUPS CALL FOR EMINENT DOMAIN TO BE IN SPECIAL SESSION

Some, including Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples, Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers, and the Texas Farm Bureau, are calling for stronger eminent domain protections to be addressed in a special session. Farm Bureau President Kenneth Dierschke said, “We have to guard against the possibility that some may declare the job done on eminent domain reform. If there is a special session, we hope Governor Perry will add it to the call. If there is not, this has to be a top priority for the next regular session.”

PERRY ALAMO SIGNING A SHAM

There have been several news accounts of Gov. 39% signing the authorization in front of the Alamo for HJR 14 to be on the ballot this November. The only account I saw that explains that the whole ceremony was a sham is from Ken Herman in the Statesman.
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/2009/06/06/16/0616herman_edit.html

“Who amongst us does not enjoy political theater? . . . The only thing better than political theater is the subcategory of political theater/fiction. This would be when a politician performs in a little show that is fully make-believe. . . .

“A real trouper, Gov. Rick Perry showed up at the Alamo, right arm in sling from a recent bike wreck, and used his left hand to sign House Joint Resolution 14, a proposed constitutional amendment concerning eminent domain. . . .

“Beautiful. Perfect. Inspiring. And as phony as they come.

“Here's why: Texas governors have nothing to do with proposed constitutional amendments. When a proposed amendment gets the necessary two-thirds vote in each chamber — as HJR 14 did this year — it goes to the secretary of state, who puts it on the statewide ballot. Unlike proposed laws, proposed constitutional amendments are not routed through the governor's office.

“No vetoes allowed. No signature required. No signing ceremony needed. . . . It's all about re-establishing Perry as a private property-rights kind of guy, a credential he covets as he heads toward a 2010 renomination battle against Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. . . .

“Exactly two years ago Monday, Perry invited questions about his dedication to private property rights by vetoing a bill dealing with the concept of ‘diminished access.’ . . . the veto did not sit well with some, including the Texas Farm Bureau, holder of a potentially pivotal endorsement in the 2010 GOP gubernatorial primary.

“The 2007 veto came on the heels of Perry's ill-fated Trans-Texas Corridor highway project, one that also attracted the ire of folks who fear government taking of private property.

“Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, stood with Perry on Monday. After the ‘signing’ ceremony, the 21-year legislative veteran could not immediately recall previously attending a ceremony where a governor signed something a governor has no business signing.”

Since there is no provision for such a signing, I wonder what Perry actually signed. Did his office make up an official-looking document that would be a fake with no significance? Then what happened to the signed fake document? Maybe it will become a collector’s item.

Ag Commish calls for eminent domain in special session

Many of you might have already seen the column from Ag Commissioner Todd Staples in today’s Statesman. In case you haven’t . . .

http://www.statesman.com/search/content/editorial/stories/06/04/0604staples_edit.html

SB 18, the bill to provide more protection from eminent domain, the bill that was strongly supported by the Texas Farm Bureau, passed the Senate, although it was held up in the Senate far longer that it should have been. It reached the House so late that it was caught up in the end-of-session slow-down effort in the House, so never passed.

HJR 14 did pass both houses and will be on the November ballot as a constitutional amendment saying that condemnation proceedings must be for a public purpose.

Staples’ column asks that eminent domain protection be one of the subjects in a special session. He says: “The passage of HJR 14, a constitutional amendment that will be sent to the voters in November, provides much needed protection to ensure that, in the unfortunate instance that government must exercise condemnation powers, that it is for a clear public use and purpose.”

“Painfully absent from our laws in Texas . . . are fundamental protections to the owners of private property. A series of loopholes in the law and court decisions have eroded our rights. . . . [SB 18] would have established stricter penalties for not negotiating in good faith; demanded adequate compensation for loss of access; and clarified that eminent domain must only be exercised for public use. We know there are several matters that were casualties of the regular session that need to be tackled — eminent domain reform is without a question or doubt one of these essential topics.”

SB 18 eminent domain protection is dead

While we are breathlessly awaiting word from the HB 300 TxDOT Sunset conference committee, let's use this time to consider some instructive insights from Martha Estes about another bill that we had high hopes for this session--SB 18, more protection from eminent domain.

See the most recent ACRE post on this issue:

http://acretexas.blogspot.com/2009/05/has-time-run-out-for-eminent-domain.html

For other ACRE eminent domain posts, click on the "eminent domain" tag at the bottom of that post.

Re SB 18, Martha laments:

"IT IS DEAD: About the EMINENT DOMAIN bill & SB 18 by Estes.. IT IS DEAD

". . . the Eminent Domain BILL was used as a 'bargaining position' to exact support for other bills. SO... holding it up in the Senate State Affairs Cmte. & Senate was necessary to maintain the upper hand in the backroom deals.

"RULE: What you FIRST see is OFTEN NOT what you get.. it is likely disguised or likely to undergo transformational surgery through amendments or committee substitutes & often BOTH.

"STRATEGY: Sending bills through CERTAIN committees guarantees their outcome & controls their "speed". Obvious Example: Rep. Mike Krusee as Chair of the Transportation Cmte. until this session.

"TEASER: The Eminent Domain bill was hyped statewide MORE than any OTHER transportation related bill (to 'please or appease the masses') with the Local Option having a big, COSTLY public relations roll-out (HillCo lobby firm) at first & then growing quiet (but working feverishly behind the scenes) when there was some loud opposition.. as WE well know.

"KEYHOLE MOMENT on a resolution of interest to the masses: The revelations in the Dallas paper related to the VETO OVERRIDE resolution HJR 29 is a good example of what you DON'T ordinarily SEE behind the scenes."

[See the end of ACRE post
http://acretexas.blogspot.com/2009/05/has-time-run-out-for-eminent-domain.html
which discusses HJR 29 and Wentworth's unusual candor.]

Martha concludes, "Senator WENTWORTH's candor WILL cost him dearly in his next Republican primary. I'll take any bets on it.. and I am NOT a gambler."

Has time run out for eminent domain protection and veto override?

Last night, time may have run out on two important bills.
First, the Statesman’s Jason Embry reports on eminent domain legislation. SB 18 was passed by the Senate and was before the House when it shut down at midnight with many bills left on the calendar.
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/firstreading/entries/2009/05/27/can_this_session_be_saved.html

Embry says, “Many thought the chubbing might ease up enough Tuesday for some big non-voter ID bills to pass, such as the bill authorizing the state to get federal stimulus dollars for unemployment insurance and the eminent-domain legislation. But Rep. Richard Raymond, D-Laredo, had other ideas, launching his own talk-a-thon that ate up most of the day . . .

“So there are six days left in the session and some major Senate bills are (at best) in serious jeopardy because they did not pass the House: . . . eminent domain . . . If any of this is going to be salvaged, there is going to have to be major triage in the Senate . . . "

Let’s hope some “major triage” can save SB 18--stronger protection against eminent domain for landowners.

The second good bill in danger is HJR 29 that would allow the Legislature to come back after the regular session to override a governor’s veto. As reported by Christy Hoppe, Dallas Morning News, Sen. Jeff Wentworth says that Gov. Perry and Lt. Gov. Dewhurst “are conspiring to kill” this constitutional amendment.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/legislature/stories/DN-vetofight_27tex.ART.State.Edition1.511dd6a.html

From Hoppe’s article: “Sen. Jeff Wentworth, speaking with unusual candor against powerhouses in the Capitol, said Dewhurst betrayed a trust as the Senate's presiding officer to deal fairly and address bills that have the support of two-thirds of the 31-member Senate. Wentworth, R-San Antonio, said he had collected the signatures of 26 Senate supporters for the constitutional proposal, but Dewhurst told him that at the behest of the governor, he would not call up the bill for debate."

Wentworth said, "[Dewhurst] made a deal with the governor and gave his word he'd kill the bill. He told me that the governor has talked to him 20 times about it." The veto override passed the House easily and has been sitting in the Senate since May 15—more than enough time for it to be debated and passed by the 26 Senators that have signed up for it.

To allow Texans to vote on this amendment is overwhelmingly favored by their representatives in the House and the Senate. It is being killed by Perry and Dewhurst. What does this tell us about the need for this amendment?

Yes to SB 18 for more protection against eminent domain

SB 18, the eminent domain bill by Estes is now on the House’s Major State Calendar. It was expected that it would go before the House today, but because the House has been clogged up for most of the day with delaying actions, this bill has not been acted on yet.

SB 18 has been changed somewhat since it was introduced. Some are saying that it has been fatally weakened, but others believe that it still gives property owners more rights than we have currently, including compensation for “diminished access” without using that exact phrase and providing for more transparency in the condemnation process.

The Texas Farm Bureau has been working on behalf of more protection against eminent domain throughout this session, and the Bureau is still strongly in favor of SB 18. To find your representative to ask him or her to vote for SB 18 go to

http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/

Contact your senator to support HJR 14

The Institute for Justice is the public interest law firm that represented Suzette Kelo in her fight to keep her home that resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court Kelo decision IN FAVOR OF TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY from individuals and giving it to others for economic development purposes. They are asking that we contact our senator to support HJR 14--the constitutional amendment to put better protection against eminent domain abuse into the Texas constitution.

HJR 14 has passed the House. If the Senate passes it with a two-thirds majority, it will appear on the November ballot so that we can vote FOR more protection of private property. Now is the time to contact your senator to support of HJR 14. For many of us, our senator is:
Steve Ogden
steve.ogden@senate.state.tx.us

If he is not your senator, please click on the link in the message below to find your senator.

From: the Institute for Justice

On Monday, the House unanimously passed H.J.R. 14, a constitutional amendment that would end eminent domain abuse in Texas. If the Senate passes H.J.R. 14 by a two-thirds vote, it will appear on the November ballot, and you - the voters of Texas - will be able to vote for better property rights protections. Now, more than ever, it is critical that you make your voice heard and support H.J.R. 14. Call your Texas Senator and tell them you support H.J.R. 14 TODAY. You can find their contact information here: http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/

Forward this link to all of your friends and family: http://www.NoMoreKelosInTexas.com. Encourage them to take a few minutes today to call their Texas Senator.The Senate will vote soon. Please call immediately. This is it. It's been four years since the Kelo decision. The future of property rights in Texas rests in the hands of the Texas State Senate. We have to let them know how important stopping eminent domain for private gain is to Texans.

Thank you for continuing to stand on the frontlines of the battle against eminent domain abuse. Christina Walsh
www.ij.org www.castlecoalition.org
Institute for Justice TEXAS CHAPTER
816 CONGRESS AVE, SUITE 960 AUSTIN, TX 78701 (512) 480-5936 FAX (512) 480-5937

Burka asks: What does killing the Trans-Texas Corridor mean?--ACRE answers

Paul Burka has posted and received comments about HB 300, the TxDOT Sunset Bill.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/burkablog/?p=3792

I commented that one of the things that should be kept in HB 300 is killing the Trans-Texas Corridor. Burka asked what did people mean by killing the TTC. Below is my reply to his question:

I would say that killing the Trans-Texas Corridor is what is intended by HB 11 by Rep. Leibowitz, which is the “repeal of authority for the establishment and operation of the Trans-Texas Corridor.” I don’t know if this is the language of the amendment that was added to HB 300. It is my understanding that the amendment to HB 300 would be something like HB 11. The purpose would be to take away the authority to create and operate the TTC that was given to TxDOT by HB 3588 in 2003.

As long as this authority to create an entity with the name of TTC is still in statute and still in other official documents such as the Environmental Impact Statement (which is still stuck at the Federal Highway Administration), there is the danger that the project will be resurrected.

The project itself is as described in the document “Crossroads of the Americas” which lays out the design of the TTC as a multi-modal, almost quarter-mile wide swath of routes in a network that criss-crosses Texas—ten vehicular lanes, six rail lines, pipelines, and utility zone, with all concessions within the TTC boundaries—that would sweep through the state, bypassing cities, thus depriving them of trade as well as tax base, because of all the acreage taken out of the local taxing districts.

As it unfolded, it was intended that the TTC be a public-private partnership, giving Cintra (a Spanish corporation) the right to profit from land taken from Texas landowners through eminent domain by the state and turned over to Cintra.

For years, our family and our neighbors have been fighting the TTC. Considering all our efforts added to the efforts of other grass-roots groups along the Corridor routes, there is no telling how many hours, days, years of time and energy we have had to take away from other endeavors to spend in the effort to save our land. These efforts required our time and money, while the people who have been trying to take our land away from us have been well-paid with our own tax money.

Over the years, those of us working against the TTC have had gradual and hard-won success. Not that it was totally due to anti-Corridor efforts, but one instance that I would like to point out is that it was “our Representative” Mike Krusee who authored HB 3588 to create the TTC. Now, our current Representative Diana Maldonado is a coauthor of HB 11 that would abolish the Corridor.

We have made progress, and the TTC name has been disavowed, but the TTC is not dead. So many Texans have spent so many hours fighting the Corridor—hours that could have been put to more productive use—it would be great if this burden could be lifted from the shoulders of rural Texans once and for all, either by HB 11 being voted out of committee and being passed by the Legislature or by keeping language totally repealing the authority for the TTC in HB 300 as it is passed by the Legislature.

Help Farm Bureau to push for SB 18 eminent domain protection

The Texas Farm Bureau has sent out an action alert to help SB 18, and I have forwarded it to the ACRE group.

Please call or email now to support SB 18 for better eminent domain protection! We can make a difference if enough of us contact our Senators!

The Texas Farm Bureau is asking people to ask their State Senator to support SB 18, which is a good eminent domain bill. It is expected to be voted on by the whole Senate this week. The Senator of many of us is Steve Ogden, who is not a coauthor of this bill. His Capitol office phone is 512-463-0105. Or send an email from his home page on the Senate Website:
Visit Home Page on Texas Senate Website
Or click on "Take Action!" in the message below to respond through the Texas Farm Bureau's website.

Here are some neighboring Senators:
Sen. Hegar, who represents Bastrop County, is a coauthor of the bill, so please thank him for this.
Sen. Kirk Watson of Travis County is not a coauthor.
Sen. Troy Fraser, who represents Bell County, is not a coauthor.
You can see how to contact them by going to the Legislature Online. http://www.legis.state.tx.us/Home.aspx

From the Farm Bureau:
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:42:20 -0400
Please Contact Your State Senator in Support of SB 18-Eminent Domain Reform
Eminent Domain Reform to be voted on in Texas Senate

Take Action!
Contact Your Senator to Support SB 18 by Senator Craig Estes

Senate Bill 18 will be voted on by the Texas Senate this week. Senate Bill 18 is a strong eminent domain reform bill that protects property owners.

It ensures property owners receive a good faith offer before their property is condemned, and it provides property owners with fair compensation, including diminshed access.

Please contact your Senator and let them know you need their support for this historic property rights legislation.

Amendment to override governor's veto has passed the House, will be heard in Senate

HJR 29, by Rep. Gary Elkins (Republican of Houston), would place a constitutional amendment before the voters in November "to allow the legislature to override a veto of the governor following a legislative session." This measure would fix the problem of the governor waiting to veto legislation until after the session is over, thus making it impossible for the Legislature to override his veto, even if the votes are there.

HJR 29 has already passed the House with only token opposition: 131 Yeas, 16 Nays, 1 Present, not voting. Our HD 52 Rep. Diana Maldonado voted yes. HJR 29 now will be heard in the Senate State Affairs Committee on Thursday, April 30, in the Senate Chamber at 1 p.m. or upon adjournment of the full Senate.

Gov. 39% has used this tactic in the past to veto popular legislation that had overwhelming support of the legislators and their constituents, such as the strong eminent domain bill in 2007. Organizations like the Texas Farm Bureau worked hard on this bill all during the session, and it was greatly desired by property owners such as those threatened by the Trans-Texas Corridor. It passed the House 143-0 and the Senate 29-1. After the legislators went home, Perry vetoed it.

The progress of HJR 29 to authorize a way to override late vetoes is the result of Perry's past vetoes that annoyed enough legislators to bring things to this point. In other words, his past actions might come back to bite not only him, but future governors, who will have lost this power of their office due to Perry's abuse of it.

Action AGAINST eminent domain needed now!

NOW is the time to contact the House and Senate committees where the two best bills with protection against eminent domain are still stuck. HB 1483 by Pitts is left pending in the House Land and Resource Management Committee. SB 18 by Estes is left pending in the Senate State Affairs Committee. Both of these bills are endorsed by the Texas Farm Bureau as the best protection for rural landowners.

Below is information, including contact information, from several groups.

TURF ISSUES BILL ALERT

HELP PROTECT LANDOWNERS FROM EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE
Important eminent domain bills stuck in committee with only a few days left to get them passed and still have time to override a Perry veto. CALL NOW! Forcibly taking OUR private property and handing it to foreign corporations like Cintra or ACS, are the centerpiece of Perry's Trans- Texas Corridor and network of tollways. Landowners need protection and Perry vetoed a good bill last session. We MUST get this passed in time to override him.Tell these committees we want HB 1483 AND SB 18 voted OUT of committee NOW!
Email them here: - Senate State Affairs Committee- House Land & Resource Committee

LINDA CURTIS OF INDEPENDENT TEXANS SAYS ‘HAMMER THE COMMITTEE OFFICES NOW’

What can we do? Help get the eminent domain reform bills out of committee! We need to hammer the Committee offices (don’t be mean, but be firm) now!!

Easy Steps!

1. No matter where you live in Texas, call the Committee offices below and urge them to get House Bill 1483 and Senate Bill 18 out of their respective committees right away!

Senate State Affairs Committee: 512-463-0380 (Senate Bill 18)
House Land & Resource Committee: 512-463-1623 (House Bill 1483)

2. Call the Committee chairs and vice chairs no matter where you live in Texas.

SENATE State Affairs Committee (C 640)
Clerk: Kelsey Erickson Tel: (512) 463-0067 Sam Houston Building - Room 445
Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, Chair (512) 463-0128 & Fax: (512) 463-2424, *call regardless of where you live Robert.Duncan@Senate.State.tx.us
Robert Deuell, R-Greenville, Vice-Chair (512) 463-0102 & Fax: (512) 463-*call regardless of where you live Robert.Deuell@Senate.State.tx.us
HOUSE Land & Resource Management Committee (C360)Clerk: Trey Burke Phone: (512) 463-1623 Room: EXT E2.136
Chair: Rep. Dennis Bonnen #25 (R) Dennis.Bonnen@house.state.tx.us
512-463-0564 & Fax (512) 463-8414, Brazoria County * call regardless of where you live
Vice Chair: Rep. Jessica Farrar 148 (D) Jessica.Farrar@house.state.tx.us 512-463-0620 & Fax (512) 463-0894, Houston, * call regardless of where you live

3. Forward this email to all you know in Texas.

4. Optional, but can be VERY helpful. Write a very brief letter to the editor of your favorite or local newspaper!

Get after it y’all!
Linda CurtisIndependent Texans http://IndyTexans.org

MARTHA ESTES NOTES ‘URGENCY’

ACTION Alert: SUPPORT Eminent Domain BILLS

WHY NOW? The URGENCY grows greater as the days in this session grow shorter… making an effort to OVERRIDE the expected PERRY Veto impossible. PERRY played the stall game and won in 2007 when HB 2006 was PASSED with massive support and KILLED by his Veto.

New high-speed rail idea a BAD idea

The Quorum Report has just reported "High-Speed Rail Could Make a Comeback in Texas." I was very sorry to read that "Hope for a statewide high-speed rail network may be revived this session--courtesy of the mammoth stimulus package"--sorry for the landowners in the way and sorry for the taxpayers who will be saddled with yet another white elephant burden for who knows how many decades to come.

Others are concerned, says Quorum Report, that the rail proposal will be like the Trans-Texas Corridor--a "big unwieldy state-run project with little oversight and unquenchable eminent domain demands."

ACRE is following the misguided effort to force UP freight off the line through Austin to a new line that would tear up the valuable Blackland Prairie in our Eastern Williamson Co. area. There is hard data from other countries with extensive high-speed rail that the economics are not there for this scheme to be workable in this country. The facts and figures don't seem to matter to the people who are pushing it. Again, like the Corridor and other such projects, I'm afraid that a lot of land will be condemned and the construction started, or even finished, before it becomes obvious to all that the system really won't take that many vehicles off the roads, that it will never be self-supporting, and that it will have to be heavily tax-payer subsidized always.