|
|
 |
Social Movements & Civil Participation
The Texas Senate passed Senate Bill 62 which attempts to define when government entities in Texas can take private property for economic development or to enrich a private party on July 13.
“The hurdles are high and the bill is clear,” said the author of the bill, Kyle Janek, R-Houston, as he called for the vote. S.B. 62, as amended, passed with 23 senators voting “yea” and six voting “nay.”
S.B. 62 allows government entities to take private property only for specific enumerated public uses that include transportation projects (including railroads, ports, airports, or public roads and highways), water supply and wastewater projects, operations of a regulated common carrier or energy transporter, provision of utility services, and for sports and community venue projects approved by voters at elections held on or before December 1, 2005-a reference to the Dallas Cowboys’ football stadium approved by Arlington, Texas voters on Nov. 2, 2004.
The Senate was spurred to address the issue in the special session by voters’ reaction to the June 23, 2005 ruling by the U. S. Supreme Court in Kelo et al. v. City of New London on June 23, 2005 and by, some believe, the vocal and increasingly organized criticism of the proposed Trans-Texas Corridor transportation project.
In Kelo, the Supreme Court ruled that private property could be taken by the City of New London for the private benefit of Pfizer Pharmaceutical Company.
Land owners across Texas are fighting the possible condemnation of their farm and ranch property for right-of-way for the proposed Trans-Texas corridor between Oklahoma and the Texas/Mexico border. Some estimates indicate that the corridor will require 9,000 square miles of land to be purchased or acquired through the state’s power of eminent domain.
Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso, voted for the bill and said afterwards, “The Kelo case raised key issues on when condemnation can be used for economic development. In my view, condemnation should never be used to take a private property from one to confer a private benefit to another. Our amendments made sure that government shows a public use when condemnation is used. While the bill is far from perfect, I think it addressed many of these issues.”
“We are trying to say that the government can only use its power to condemn property for a public use and when the property being condemned can be considered 'reasonably necessary' for the public use,” Shapleigh added.
Senator John Whitmire, D-Houston, who spoke and voted against the bill said afterwards, “In the days to come, members will begin to hear from economic development councils and mayors and commissioners courts saying ‘we can’t enter into (development agreements) with the private sector (now) because (our development plans were) going to require some condemnation.’” Whitmire pointed out that many of these agreements in the past have required condemnations but have been approved by voters and then generated hundreds, sometimes thousands of jobs, and millions of dollars in economic benefits for their communities.
© Copyright World Internet News 2006-07
Top of Page
|
|
|
Social Movements & Civil Participation
|
|
