https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2023/04/21/moses-roses-owner-rejects-final-526m-offer-prepares-for-eminent-domain-fight/

The Alamo Trust is planning a $400 million project that will reshape all of Alamo Plaza and a bar owner stands in their way. He owns the bar and the building and he was offered $5.26 Million and he turned it down and the Trust says fair market value for the business is right around $2 million. Once eminent domain proceedings start they will withdraw their final offer and pay fair market value.

I am all for property rights and more power to owners fighting someone trying to take their land and property but his $10 million demand seems absurd and what I find interesting is his other demands which include a plaque recognizing the Mexican soldiers that died at the Alamo.
I would reject his demand based on that alone. If they end up taking his property I hope they put a bronze statue of Davy Crockett right where his bar stood.

The bar owner is being ridiculous and while I support property rights there is no Country without the ability for eminent domain.

I think a Davy Crockett would be fun but after reading the Texas Monthly article recently on this, it will more likely be filled with dioramas and reflections that Davy and friend only came to slavery to propagate slavery and that the nice old Mexicans were just trying to free the blacks in Texas against mean whitey.

It's not just a building. It is a fully operational and profitable business they're taking from him. Also, should read up a bit on this Alamo expansion. Not exactly a move in the name of history. There's a lot of corruption behind it.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3358194

Page 1

And he was offered more than twice what it's worth

San Antonio has no right to take his property. I hope he sues them and bankrupts that corrupt City.

45-70Ag said:

---

And he was offered more than twice what it's worth

---

On the city's valuation. What they should've done is give him a comparable spot to own and operate by the "New Alamo". Not just take his business and say "take this or leave this"

"Conservatives" haha. As long as we like you.

Irish 2.0 said:

---

45-70Ag said:

---

And he was offered more than twice what it's worth

---

On the city's valuation. What they should've done is give him a comparable spot to own and operate by the "New Alamo". Not just take his business and say "take this or leave this"

---

Thinking about this further, that would be the decent thing to do. I'm guessing the city of San Antonio isn't interested in doing the decent thing.

This is why they want it. His bar is located where the entrance would be.

https://www.wmf.org/project/san-antonio-woolworth-building

Irish 2.0 said:

---

It's not just a building. It is a fully operational and profitable business they're taking from him. Also, should read up a bit on this Alamo expansion. Not exactly a move in the name of history. There's a lot of corruption behind it.

---

If it is happening in San Antonio, it is a sure bet corruption is involved.

But what specifically are you referring to? Or please point me in the direction of what you have read. I'm genuinely curious. I don't trust that this whole thing is not an elaborate exercise in revisionist history.

Texans can now dei at the Alamo cause line been crossed.

This project is a complete disaster and most in SA would love to see it scrapped. The state GLO has been leading it, especially George P. Bush.

Closing Alamo St. - bad idea
Building a museum to display Phil Collins' artifacts, many of which are fake - bad idea
Moving cenotaph - why? A dumb compromise with the local libs
Controlling access to public plaza for admission charge - no thanks
The entire design and notion of faux historicism - horrible idea
"Retelling" the story of the Alamo - wait until kids are taught that Crockett, Bowie, etc were racist colonizers
Using eminent domain on this dumbass bar owner - terrible idea

Just so much dumb stuff and highlighting the worst of politics on both ends of the spectrum.

I wonder if any of the Alamo defenders were trans. That would be a cool exhibit.

Let him open up shop in basement

45-70Ag said:

---

And he was offered more than twice what it's worth

---

He was offered twice what the city says it is worth. Only the owner can say what it is worth to him. This is likely his livelihood and he has a lot of emotions tied up in his business that you can't just replace by moving.

bonfarr said:

---

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2023/04/21/moses-roses-owner-rejects-final-526m-offer-prepares-for-eminent-domain-fight/

The Alamo Trust is planning a $400 million project that will reshape all of Alamo Plaza and a bar owner stands in their way. He owns the bar and the building and he was offered $5.26 Million and he turned it down and the Trust says fair market value for the business is right around $2 million. Once eminent domain proceedings start they will withdraw their final offer and pay fair market value.

I am all for property rights and more power to owners fighting someone trying to take their land and property but his $10 million demand seems absurd and what I find interesting is his other demands which include a plaque recognizing the Mexican soldiers that died at the Alamo.
I would reject his demand based on that alone. If they end up taking his property I hope they put a bronze statue of Davy Crockett right where his bar stood.

---

In an honest, Capitalist transaction, the buyer and seller come to a mutual agreement on the sale price. If they cannot agree, then there is no sale. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks the price should be.

Of course, for the Socialists, Anti-Capitalists, and other Anti-Freedom types, it somehow makes sense to demand that others do what they are told.

Irish 2.0 said:

---

45-70Ag said:

---

And he was offered more than twice what it's worth

---

On the city's valuation. What they should've done is give him a comparable spot to own and operate by the "New Alamo". Not just take his business and say "take this or leave this"

---

That could be part of an offer in an attempt to arrive at an honest transaction, but not necessarily.

jetch17 said:

---

Let him open up shop in basement

---

I remember….





the Alamo

Teslag said:

---

jetch17 said:

---

Let him open up shop in basement

---

I remember….





the Alamo

---

Funny, but the Alamo gift shop is the only part that does indeed have a basement, dug out in the 1980's.

Where is the basement? A question we hear often thanks to Pee-Wee's Big Adventure.
While there not a basement in either of our historic structures, there is one under the gift shop. The gift shop was constructed in 1937 and the basement was dug out in the 1980s.@peeweeherman pic.twitter.com/Zv7Bg8sAV4

— The Alamo (@OfficialAlamo) October 22, 2018

Look at Maria she is making Tortillas

Can you say Tortilla?

fka ftc said:

---

The bar owner is being ridiculous and while I support property rights there is no Country without the ability for eminent domain.

I think a Davy Crockett would be fun but after reading the Texas Monthly article recently on this, it will more likely be filled with dioramas and reflections that Davy and friend only came to slavery to propagate slavery and that the nice old Mexicans were just trying to free the blacks in Texas against mean whitey.

---

Not sure who has the ultimate authority on the future theme of this facility. If it's up to the SA political faction I could see them flipping the script 180 and making it a memorial for the Mexicans who died there.

They could have grand ceremonies and pay reparations to the families of Santa Anna's men who lost their lives.

It is so they can expand the Woolworth building, and the plan is that it becomes a civil rights museum because of the history of lunch counter sit-ins. Irony is abusing eminent domain to aquire the private property for a museum of "civil rights"

If they can't agree, a group of commissioners will be appointed by the Court to determine the fair value of the property. Each side will present their appraisal of the land and other testimony to the commissioners. The commissioners qualifications are that they are property owners in the County. They usually try to split the baby.

SociallyConditionedAg said:

---

San Antonio has no right to take his property. I hope he sues them and bankrupts that corrupt City.

---

Do you have the slightest clue what eminent domain is?

DogHouse95 said:

---

If they can't agree, a group of commissioners will be appointed by the Court to determine the fair value of the property. Each side will present their appraisal of the land and other testimony to the commissioners. The commissioners qualifications are that they are property owners in the County. They usually try to split the baby.

---

And if he still doesn't like that decision, he can take it to a jury in district court.

Martin Cash said:

---

DogHouse95 said:

---

If they can't agree, a group of commissioners will be appointed by the Court to determine the fair value of the property. Each side will present their appraisal of the land and other testimony to the commissioners. The commissioners qualifications are that they are property owners in the County. They usually try to split the baby.

---

And if he still doesn't like that decision, he can take it to a jury in district court.

---

The three-person commission isn't as impartial as people think. I watched an ED case a few years ago where it went to the commission. The governmental agency had an appraisal. The owner never got an appraisal, but claimed that once the government project was complete, his value was much higher than what he was offered (but he never quantified). When it went to the commission, they awarded a sale in an amount 9x the appraised value. Turns out the owners attorney was Carlos Uresti, the criminal attorney. They were never able to prove it, but it sure looked like the commission had been paid off.

Burdizzo said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

DogHouse95 said:

---

If they can't agree, a group of commissioners will be appointed by the Court to determine the fair value of the property. Each side will present their appraisal of the land and other testimony to the commissioners. The commissioners qualifications are that they are property owners in the County. They usually try to split the baby.

---

And if he still doesn't like that decision, he can take it to a jury in district court.

---

The three-person commission isn't as impartial as people think. I watched an ED case a few years ago where it went to the commission. The governmental agency had an appraisal. The owner never got an appraisal, but claimed that once the government project was complete, his value was much higher than what he was offered (but he never quantified). When it went to the commission, they awarded a sale in an amount 9x the appraised value. Turns out the owners attorney was Carlos Uresti, the criminal attorney. They were never able to prove it, but it sure looked like the commission had been paid off.

---

It's appointed by the Court and they can appoint virtually anyone they want. Even if there wasn't a payoff, the Judge could stack the deck in someone's favor if they were "a friend".

MookieBlaylock said:

---

Look at Maria she is making Tortillas

Can you say Tortilla?

---

I hadn't thought of Maria's Tortillas in years...

I used to work there as a volunteer as a little kid (my Dad knew someone that was involved with them).

MMMMM...so simple yet so ****ing good...

Martin Cash said:

---

SociallyConditionedAg said:

---

San Antonio has no right to take his property. I hope he sues them and bankrupts that corrupt City.

---

Do you have the slightest clue what eminent domain is?

---

Do you?

And now it is going to condemnation


https://sanantonioreport.org/san-antonio-eminent-domain-lawsuit-bar-alamo-museum/

Is there something inherently incorrect or wrong with the existing Alamo se up? What is driving the need for this project?

pagerman @ work said:

---

Is there something inherently incorrect or wrong with the existing Alamo se up? What is driving the need for this project?

---

Without going into too.much detail, they are "redeveloping" the Alamo Plaza to make it less of a tourist trap and make it more of a place of dignity, not only for the Alamo defenders, but for a lot of groups. They state has bought the buildings where the Ripley's and Wax Museum were so that they could be part of telling the story of the Alamo and not just kitschy crap. One budings was the former Woolworth building were there was a sit in at the lunch counter during the civil rights movements, so there is a historical aspect to it. The state wants to make that a civil rights museum. The bar owns the property on the opposite side, and they are claiming they need his property for a service entrance.

This going to be an interesting public debate. On one side you have a property owner who thinks the government is not compensating him properly for his property and business. On the other side you have a shrine to people who died rebelling against big government.

Maybe this will allow the Supreme Court to correct the Kelo decision.