|
|
|
|
|
Even though the Texas House and Senate demonstrated overwhelming support to prevent private property from being condemned for economic development purposes, the two chambers could not agree on how best to address the issue during the first special session of the Texas Legislature. As a result, SB 62 by Sen. Kyle Janek (R-Houston) died without a compromise being reached.
Texas Farm Bureau President Kenneth Dierschke had called for the Senate to join the Texas House in passing a constitutional amendment allowing Texas citizens to limit local governments' use of eminent domain for condemnation of private property for economic development. He said that without protections in the state constitution, a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision could "set the stage for an assault on private property rights."
"No property is safe," he said during the first special session. "Texans should decide this issue at the ballot box."
Dierschke praised the Texas House for passing a constitutional amendment dealing with the issue. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in the Kelo versus New London case, private property advocate groups, including the Texas Farm Bureau, asked Gov. Rick Perry to add the issue to the current special session call.
"We appreciate the leadership of Gov. Perry in this very important issue," Dierschke said, "and hope that it is added to the agenda of the second special session."
HJR 19, by Rep. Frank Corte (R-San Antonio), would allow citizens to vote to limit eminent domain in the form of a constitutional amendment. Corte's resolution passed the House on a 132-0 vote.
Senate Bill 62 would limit, by statute, government from using eminent domain to benefit private developers. Texas Farm Bureau prefers the House approach, which places protection of private property in the state constitution.
According to TFB State Legislative Director Billy Howe, the conflict between the two chambers involves three issues:
1) The House version allows a property owner to receive "replacement value" if their property is condemned for economic development purposes. The Senate opposed this language because replacement value was not defined to determine damages a property owner could receive. The current standard of fair market value is established law.
2) The House version added an exemption for ports to condemn property to "operate" or do "industrial development." The Senate felt this language was too broad and that ports would be able to condemn for economic development purposes. New language to address the ports' concerns while maintaining the intent of the legislation is being negotiated.
3) The House version included a provision that made the court responsible for determining if the condemnation was for economic development purposes. The Senate opposed this language. They argue that the language is not needed because the right of a property owner to contest a condemnation is well established.
Dierschke warned that cities and other local governmental entities are determined to expand tax base, and pursue economic development, at the expense of private landowners and homeowners.
"We prefer a constitutional amendment to deal with this issue because it would be tinker-proof, and would ensure that private property rights, a cornerstone of our society, are not further diluted," Dierschke said.
