Real Estate & Property Law

Texans' dislike of eminent domain

By Alan Ackerman

Star Telegram

On Nov. 3, Texans will have to decide just how much power government should have at its disposal to take private property for a "public good." Proposition 11 would, in theory, limit the power of the state to forcibly take a resident's property.

Sounds like a good idea. But the apparent high level of support for the proposition, contrasted with our track record, makes me question just how sincere we are or if we're trying to take the easy way out of the debate.

There are numerous examples of eminent domain abuse that, despite some vocal opposition, ultimately came to fruition with both government and public support: Cowboys Stadium, Rangers Ballpark at Arlington, Texas Motor Speedway and the Trinity River Vision, to name a few. Our distrust of the state's power to take our property seems to wane when it comes to big, shiny edifices.

The Star Telegram opinion espousing eminent domain for private development misses the point. The baseball and football stadiums could have been built with private funds. However, we can make these franchises instant billionaires by building their stadiums and letting them control all the concessions. Somehow, the politicians are worked over enough by these franchise owners to succeed in allowing all the public revenue go to the owners without the owners being at risk. The real argument is that there are times in which no other recourse but the eminent domain process will allow or without eminent domain, the liability of the community is impeded.  A prime example of this is the power of eminent domain over leaseholds with the old Trusts in Hawaii.

Full post as published by National Eminent Domain Blog on October 27, 2009 (boomark / email).