eric76 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Snow Monkey Ambassador said:

---

eric76 said:

---

dlance said:

---

I have a coworker who has old family land on the border. The government ED'd a strip of his land and built part of the existing fence on it. He said they paid pretty quickly and a fair amount. The problem is he has about 75 acres left on the other side of the fence that he no longer has access to. They won't put and won't let him put a gate in for access and there is nowhere to cross it for miles, and no way to access the land from anywhere you can cross.

It is horse*****

---

That matches what I've read elsewhere.

As I've said many times, eminent domain is for people who don't believe in Capitalism and Free Markets.

---

I get what you're saying, but eminent domain is probably the #1 tool the government has at its disposal to support free markets and capitalism. It may suck in the individual cases or people whose land is taken - and I'm not really even defending the practice, here - but it's definitely not anti-capitalist.

---

How the hell does using the might of the state to run roughshod over private property owners support Free Markets and Capitalism?

---

Not a supporter of ED in most cases.

But without the power of ED, you would, in all likelyhood, not be able to drive to work in the morning. Odds are you would not have clean potable water piped to your house. You would probably be crapping in a home in your back yard and you and every neighbor would be burning garbage in a hand dug fire pit on a daily basis.

Because almoat every road, every easement for a pipeline (whether it be for something like water or sewer for a municipality or a P3 or private venture for a private utility like petroleum or electric) is in existence indirectly or directly because of the power that ED gives for such purposes.

And pretty much 100% of every consumable you use on a daily basis uses one of the avenues listed above. And those support and promote capitaliam and free market trade.

Unfortunately it can be an ugly thing, and when looked at in a vacuum or a single instance, it is generally bad. But the thing is that it is not a mechanism that really can be looked at in a vacuum or for a single solitary case, because you would not be looking at the big picture.

---

I would be very surprised if eminent domain was necessary for more than a small percentage of right of ways for highways, power lines, and pipelines. Sure, there are people out there who would not sell at any price, but most people will. I see no reason to force them to take a price less than what they consider fair.

---

Well, prepare to be surprised. Because most people don't sit back and hope that somebody comes knocking on their door one day to let them know a new highway is proposed here and that they need to sell their land, or that a power line route runs through their property. Most people want their land left alone. Just human nature.

And from my limited experience, ED is not something the overwhelming majority of people - including the utility owner - want to go through. It is really only used in rare cases, and that is after multiple offers are generally lobbed back and forth. Because it's cheaper to pay outright more than what the utility thinks the land is worth than to go through the court system via the ED process. I'd be willing to bet that in most cases where the courts and ED actually have to get used, the utility operator loses money on the land. There are several on here with experience, hopefully they can chime in.

I doubt seriously (don't know for sure, so not saying 100% because you seem like the type of guy that would go out and find the solitary instance it happened) that there are many, if any, cases where the utility operator walked up and went directly to the ED route. I'd be willing to be that by law you can't even do that - it was designed as a last resort tool, and should be used for that only. And should not be used so that a Wal Mart or new football stadium can be built, but strictly for legitimate public use projects (roads, power lines, pipelines, etc.).

I'm aware of that and disagree with it. I wrote my statement to include the implications of property taxes.

I do have one personal experience with the "system" during the expansion of Tomball Pky / 249 from a 4 lane road into a raised freeway back in 1991. I didn't own any land but did rent office space which I had spent about 55k building out. When I was forced to move, I had the builder price out the new build-out. It came in at 60k.

TexDot offered me 6k. As I was just getting my business started I was too poor to do much but negotiate myself (with the help of a lawyer friend). Got it up to 12k. It put me in a hole for a couple of years and scared the s4it out of me wondering if I would survive.

schmellba99 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Snow Monkey Ambassador said:

---

eric76 said:

---

dlance said:

---

I have a coworker who has old family land on the border. The government ED'd a strip of his land and built part of the existing fence on it. He said they paid pretty quickly and a fair amount. The problem is he has about 75 acres left on the other side of the fence that he no longer has access to. They won't put and won't let him put a gate in for access and there is nowhere to cross it for miles, and no way to access the land from anywhere you can cross.

It is horse*****

---

That matches what I've read elsewhere.

As I've said many times, eminent domain is for people who don't believe in Capitalism and Free Markets.

---

I get what you're saying, but eminent domain is probably the #1 tool the government has at its disposal to support free markets and capitalism. It may suck in the individual cases or people whose land is taken - and I'm not really even defending the practice, here - but it's definitely not anti-capitalist.

---

How the hell does using the might of the state to run roughshod over private property owners support Free Markets and Capitalism?

---

Not a supporter of ED in most cases.

But without the power of ED, you would, in all likelyhood, not be able to drive to work in the morning. Odds are you would not have clean potable water piped to your house. You would probably be crapping in a home in your back yard and you and every neighbor would be burning garbage in a hand dug fire pit on a daily basis.

Because almoat every road, every easement for a pipeline (whether it be for something like water or sewer for a municipality or a P3 or private venture for a private utility like petroleum or electric) is in existence indirectly or directly because of the power that ED gives for such purposes.

And pretty much 100% of every consumable you use on a daily basis uses one of the avenues listed above. And those support and promote capitaliam and free market trade.

Unfortunately it can be an ugly thing, and when looked at in a vacuum or a single instance, it is generally bad. But the thing is that it is not a mechanism that really can be looked at in a vacuum or for a single solitary case, because you would not be looking at the big picture.

---

I would be very surprised if eminent domain was necessary for more than a small percentage of right of ways for highways, power lines, and pipelines. Sure, there are people out there who would not sell at any price, but most people will. I see no reason to force them to take a price less than what they consider fair.

---

Well, prepare to be surprised. Because most people don't sit back and hope that somebody comes knocking on their door one day to let them know a new highway is proposed here and that they need to sell their land, or that a power line route runs through their property. Most people want their land left alone. Just human nature.

And from my limited experience, ED is not something the overwhelming majority of people - including the utility owner - want to go through. It is really only used in rare cases, and that is after multiple offers are generally lobbed back and forth. Because it's cheaper to pay outright more than what the utility thinks the land is worth than to go through the court system via the ED process. I'd be willing to bet that in most cases where the courts and ED actually have to get used, the utility operator loses money on the land. There are several on here with experience, hopefully they can chime in.

I doubt seriously (don't know for sure, so not saying 100% because you seem like the type of guy that would go out and find the solitary instance it happened) that there are many, if any, cases where the utility operator walked up and went directly to the ED route. I'd be willing to be that by law you can't even do that - it was designed as a last resort tool, and should be used for that only. And should not be used so that a Wal Mart or new football stadium can be built, but strictly for legitimate public use projects (roads, power lines, pipelines, etc.).

---

I said that I'd be surprised if it was actually used for more than a few properties along the way and you tell me to be ready to be surprised. Then you say that it is used only in rare cases.

That doesn't surprise me at all. It is basically what I expected.

I can see that it would surprise those here who think that nothing can be built with it.

Quote:

---

And should not be used so that a Wal Mart or new football stadium can be built, but strictly for legitimate public use projects (roads, power lines, pipelines, etc.).

---

I think we need a strict and definitive definition for what "public use project" really is. For instance, you mention pipelines. OK, a pipeline to move a product for use by the American people fits the bill in my book. A pipeline that moves a product only to be shipped overseas does not. It's not benefitting the American people, only a couple of corporations. So to get around it, they might claim that x percent of the product goes for US consumption and it's all good. What does x need to be? 90%, 80%........5%?

Remember back in the 1970's when they wanted to dredge and concrete the Trinity River just so Dallas could be a port city. It was driven by 2 Dallas businessmen who would control all the shipping/freight activity out of the port. The would make millions. It was sold to the public as a project that Dallas "needed" if it was to grow into a thriving city. In the end, it became so contentious it went to a public vote, and was rejected. That would have been one of the greatest misuses of ED ever. It wasn't a public works project but a get rich quick project. It's a great read if anybody has the time.

Quote:

---

I would be very surprised if eminent domain was necessary for more than a small percentage of right of ways for highways, power lines, and pipelines. Sure, there are people out there who would not sell at any price, but most people will. I see no reason to force them to take a price less than what they consider fair.

---

And you would be correct. The ED issue stays at the forefront due to public discussion on a small percentage of acquisitions that get ugly. I have been heavily involved with multiple projects in which acquisitions were taking place and have seen the large number of people you speak of ultimately stay out of the court room by accepting an offer. Very few are thrilled, but they accept a price they feel is reasonable enough to forgo the headache of the courtroom and the gamble that comes with that. One project that sticks out in my head involves a 200+ mile transmission line in which 95% of the parcels were negotiated out prior to getting to the courtroom. After the first trial of the remaining 5% everyone else settled before going to court themselves. I would argue that ED is designed to deal with that last 5%-10% and that is what it typically does.

Another thing to keep in mind, just compensation isn't simply a number perceived to be just to the landowner. It is also perceived to be just to the public. In other words a landowner should neither be over compensated, nor under compensated for his or her land and the effect the project may have on it. The goal of ED is to leave the landowner in the same financial situation he or she was in before the project began. If a landowner had $1,000,000 in value before the project showed up, they should be left with $1,000,000 in total assets (remaining land plus money) when the negotiations are over. ED is not designed to be a windfall for landowners and never has been.

Finally, I will tell you that I have first hand knowledge of the 2008 Border Fence Project in the Valley, and the notion that the government has still not paid land owners is simply not true. Land owners that agreed to a price were paid immediately. Land owners who went to court had the court awarded amount deposited in an escrow account immediately after the court award was made. That money was accessible by the land owner with the knowledge that if an appeal reversed the court award the difference between the original award and the appeal award had to be returned. If people are claiming they haven't been paid, it is simply a result of them recognizing the payback and choosing to leave the money in the escrow account until the final court proceedings are concluded. To my knowledge the 2008 Border Fence acquisitions are now concluded so there should be no one left that doesn't have access to funds awarded by the court. That is, unless I'm mistaken an there are still a few cases pending.

I am a landowner and I have been through the ED process on my own property. It's not fun and emotions clouded my judgement at times even though I am extremely familiar with the process. At the same time when I look back at my award I can't say that I was treated unfairly in terms of being left in the same financial shape I was in prior to the project that affected me.

Trigger06 said:

---

It might support capitalism, but it sure doesn't support FREE markets.

---

Probably said already but free markets require rational actors and people aren't always rational.

eric76 said:

---

Stive said:

---

Public works like interstates and utilities are very different than the sports stadiums you've referenced. The first group should be allowed ED, the second should not, is a clear abuse of the system, and should be put down.

It's an extremely rare situation where people don't get fair market value. Not opportunistic hosing as you prefer, but FMV. And if you don't think you've gotten FMV, that's what the courts are for.

I may be wrong, I'm going to go out on a limb and bet you've never been through that process though. While frustrating and difficult at times, it usually comes out "fair", with fair being designated in the constitution (which you're likely a big fan of).

---

There was a guy in Seabrook who was awarded $1 for property worth at least a million.

The judge denied his expert witness testimony as to the value of the property and than since he had no testimony as to its value, the judge ruled it was worth $1.

---

Seriously dude, stop parroting this BS.

It's factually incorrect and you know it. The guy was awarded $1MM+ in ED proceedings which the court placed in escrow, the guy continued to fight ED when there was no way he could win which then exhausted the $1MM he was awarded and the courts found he had been given FMV there was no reason to award any more. That the guy burned through the $$$ in legal challenges is his own damn fault.

Finn Maccumhail said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Stive said:

---

Public works like interstates and utilities are very different than the sports stadiums you've referenced. The first group should be allowed ED, the second should not, is a clear abuse of the system, and should be put down.

It's an extremely rare situation where people don't get fair market value. Not opportunistic hosing as you prefer, but FMV. And if you don't think you've gotten FMV, that's what the courts are for.

I may be wrong, I'm going to go out on a limb and bet you've never been through that process though. While frustrating and difficult at times, it usually comes out "fair", with fair being designated in the constitution (which you're likely a big fan of).

---

There was a guy in Seabrook who was awarded $1 for property worth at least a million.

The judge denied his expert witness testimony as to the value of the property and than since he had no testimony as to its value, the judge ruled it was worth $1.

---

Seriously dude, stop parroting this BS.

It's factually incorrect and you know it. The guy was awarded $1MM+ in ED proceedings which the court placed in escrow, the guy continued to fight ED when there was no way he could win which then exhausted the $1MM he was awarded and the courts found he had been given FMV there was no reason to award any more. That the guy burned through the $$$ in legal challenges is his own damn fault.

---

From http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/article/Man-awarded-1-for-105-acres-Port-condemned-9588405.php:

Quote:

---

Seureau fought for nearly three years to protect his property, in his family for more than 150 years, from the Port's power of eminent domain, only to lose his case in May of last year in the court of Harris County Civil Court Judge Lynn Bradshaw-Hull.

The judge ruled that having paid Seureau $1, the Port now owns the fee simple title to the property. Seureau was also ordered to give back the Port's previous payment of more than $1.9 million at 5.75 percent interest and pay the Port's court costs at the same interest rate.

---

II was beginning to believe that Eric was more mfbarnes, just trolling us for fun. But a quick google search seems to indicate he's more Akita (was that the dude's name?) yelling at clouds and tearing down his own fence.

At least you are consistent, I'll give you that...

From a 2011 TA Post

Quote:

---

eric76
4:56p, 8/5/11
L
AG
Eminent domain is pure evil. It basically enables the government to take your property as long as they can come up with a pretext that fits into the guidelines of state law and sometimes even if it doesn't.

The worst I've ever heard of was in the Clear Lake are when a judge gave hundreds of acres of a valuable property to the Houston Port Authority for nearly nothing.

---

...for what it's worth, I have wasted some time today looking through the old court records of the Grandfather/Father/Son trio of Glenn, Glenn, and Glenn Seureau. Appears that they were actually pissed at ExxonMobil who signed a deal with them in the 60's and screwed them. They waited too long to sue Exxon (statute of limitations ran - they actually sued, but Exxon got it dropped) and took on the Port Authority which claimed governmental immunity. The son (Glenn Jr., named after Grandpa) settled and the Father continued the suit.

Sean98 said:

---

II was beginning to believe that Eric was more mfbarnes, just trolling us for fun. But a quick google search seems to indicate he's more Akita (was that the dude's name?) yelling at clouds and tearing down his own fence.

At least you are consistent, I'll give you that...

From a 2011 TA Post

Quote:

---

eric76
4:56p, 8/5/11
L
AG
Eminent domain is pure evil. It basically enables the government to take your property as long as they can come up with a pretext that fits into the guidelines of state law and sometimes even if it doesn't.

The worst I've ever heard of was in the Clear Lake are when a judge gave hundreds of acres of a valuable property to the Houston Port Authority for nearly nothing.

---

...for what it's worth, I have wasted some time today looking through the old court records of the Grandfather/Father/Son Duo of Glenn, Glenn, and Glenn Seureau. Appears that they were actually pissed at ExxonMobil who signed a deal with them in the 60's and screwed them. They waited too long to sue Exxon (statute of limitations ran - they actually sued, but Exxon got it dropped) and took on the Port Authority which claimed governmental immunity. The son (Glenn Jr., named after Grandpa) settled and the Father continued the suit.

---

Thank you. I was about to respond to Eric but you've done so better than I could.

The fact of the matter is Eric continually points to this case and misrepresents it whenever eminent domain discussions come up.

Interesting reading on the matter: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1400237.html

Unfortunate necessity that is sadly often poorly executed by bureaucrats, or used for corrupt purposes thanks to the idiot SCOTUS and Kelo.

Kelo was the quintessential "bad cases make bad law." The bad part was that New Jersey law allowed for condemnation of blighted properties for economic development. The Supreme Court looked at it and basically said that since it was legal there, we should not intervene. After the decision, many states, in a rush to stop this from happening, passed legislation that had to be fixed later (Texas was one of those states).
Fun fact: Jerry world was a direct beneficiary of this law. There was a specific carveout so they could use eminent domain to acquire tha land to build it.

Sean98 said:

---

II was beginning to believe that Eric was more mfbarnes, just trolling us for fun. But a quick google search seems to indicate he's more Akita (was that the dude's name?) yelling at clouds and tearing down his own fence.

At least you are consistent, I'll give you that...

From a 2011 TA Post

Quote:

---

eric76
4:56p, 8/5/11
L
AG
Eminent domain is pure evil. It basically enables the government to take your property as long as they can come up with a pretext that fits into the guidelines of state law and sometimes even if it doesn't.

The worst I've ever heard of was in the Clear Lake are when a judge gave hundreds of acres of a valuable property to the Houston Port Authority for nearly nothing.

---

...for what it's worth, I have wasted some time today looking through the old court records of the Grandfather/Father/Son trio of Glenn, Glenn, and Glenn Seureau. Appears that they were actually pissed at ExxonMobil who signed a deal with them in the 60's and screwed them. They waited too long to sue Exxon (statute of limitations ran - they actually sued, but Exxon got it dropped) and took on the Port Authority which claimed governmental immunity. The son (Glenn Jr., named after Grandpa) settled and the Father continued the suit.

---

And how does this materially differ, other than in giving more detail, from what I said and have said in the past?

The fact is that when he tried to take it to court, the judge did, in fact, award it to the port authority for $1. And the judge ordered him to pay back the $1.9 million and the port authority's court costs with interest.

I knew that they appealed it, but I didn't know until this thread that the judge had been overruled.

The original $1.9 million was the decision of a commission, not a court. At no time have I made any claims that the commission was a court, unlike as was stated above.

And people do challenge the monetary awards in eminent domain decisions in court. I have no idea how often they prevail in such challenges.

Is that the same government that has ED as part of it's founding document?

The government to which you refer also had provision for slavery, and for women as non-voting citizens, in it's founding documents. Would you argue that the corrections to those "wrongs" has been a mistake? Would you argue that the use of eminent domain is as limited now as it was following the first 50 years after enactment of the Constitution and the 5th amendment?

The Fifth Amendment did nor enact nor create the practice of eminent domain. Rather, it was a provision to try to limit the use and abuses of eminent domain, and protect the citizen (the individual), from the power of the very government the founders were seeking to provide their prosterity.

Would you argue that at any level of government in this country, the Constitution is "the law of the land"? Would you argue that the founding fathers of this country would be thrilled with what we have allowed to happen to the system of government they gave us?

You brought up government protections...not me.

But by all means....continue. I love watching people talk out of both sides of their mouths and want things both ways.

Quote:

---

I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately, as my family's land in the northeast Houston area is being taken by the government for development of the grand parkway.

---

Not to derail my own thread, but the Grand Parkway got me thinking of a separate issue of "public works projects" and the use of ED.

As many of you may know Bob Lanier took a dormant plan for the Grand Parkway and brought it back to life in the 1980's and 1990's. So sure that he would get the project done, he purchased swaths of land along the proposed route. Although he died in 2014, his relatives are reaping the financial benefits of selling the land to developers.

How does the forum feel about politicians benefitting financially from "public work projects" in this manner?

It's not supposed to happen, and you're a fool if you believe that it doesn't.

aggiedent said:

---

Quote:

---

I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately, as my family's land in the northeast Houston area is being taken by the government for development of the grand parkway.

---

Not to derail my own thread, but the Grand Parkway got me thinking of a separate issue of "public works projects" and the use of ED.

As many of you may know Bob Lanier took a dormant plan for the Grand Parkway and brought it back to life in the 1980's and 1990's. So sure that he would get the project done, he purchased swaths of land along the proposed route. Although he died in 2014, his relatives are reaping the financial benefits of selling the land to developers.

How does the forum feel about politicians benefitting financially from "public work projects" in this manner?

---

They are not supposed to, but it happens everywhere you go and has through history. DIA is a great example - there is a reason that it is hell and gone from Denver. And that reason lies solely with the mayor of Denver at the time.

Much like insider trading, there are supposed to be restrictions on using your position to benefit financially, but human nature almost always interferes to some degree.