Christopher M. Swanson, eminent domain attorney, Barron,
Adler & Anderson, Houston ~
HAYC notes on remarks at June 6, 2006 Cooke County meeting
about TTC
The TTC is the only project he’s worked on where
landowners are this well organized this early in the game.
However, eminent domain is unlike any other area of law.
If you have to call him, it’s too late. 99 percent of the
time, we can’t stop the process. If you’re property is
being "taken," it is important to get an eminent
domain lawyer in order to receive the best compensation.
Theoretically, a landowner is supposed to receive
"just compensation" at "fair market
value." The State (or municipality) does an appraisal.
You are not required to answer any questions the appraiser
asks, if you don’t want to. The appraiser who will come is
working for TxDOT.
Sentimental value plays no part in the appraisal. The
unusual nature of these limited access Corridors will NOT
raise the value of most property along Corridor routes. [HAYC:
values may rise on property close to the crossroads terminal
area of Gainesville, where commercial development related to
the two, eventual, crossing Corridors (north/south &
east/west) will be at an astounding level.]
The issue of damages and the impact of this Plan on your
property ~ the problem is that the courts have eroded over
time what constitutes "damages."
The State is supposed to enter "good faith"
negotiations. Reality is that you receive one offer.
Theoretically they consider your counter offer, but they do
not have to make a second offer. If you take it to court, 3
commissioners are appointed in "takings"
proceedings to hear both sides. An experienced eminent
domain attorney can see that you get more for your property.
Chris Hammel, president of the Blackland Coalition,
stated that the involvement of eminent domain attorneys
along the entire length of a Corridor will raise the cost
significantly and perhaps help slow down the project.
Trey Blocker, eminent domain attorney, Jackson Walker,
Austin ~
HAYC notes on remarks at June 13 Cooke County meeting on TTC
Ultimately, 75% to 80% of landowners take the first
offer. The other 20% who use eminent domain lawyers receive
on average 30% more. [The lawyer’s fee comes out of the
excess over the original offer.]
EMINENT DOMAIN IN THE NEWS
June 21, 2006 ~ The Washington Times ~ Joyce
Howard Price
Eminent Domain Surges After Supreme Court Ruling (the 5-4
Kelo decision Jun. 23, 2005, with dissents from Justices O’Connor
and Thomas)
And quotes from Institute for Justice at
www.ij.org
Summary: The Times reported on information
released by the Institute for Justice [www.ij.org], an
activist group "Litigating for Liberty" and
defending property rights and other related issues. Preceding
the "one-year anniversary of the now-famous U.S. Supreme
Court decision that stripped Americans of any meaningful
federal constitutional protection for their private
property," the IJ and the related Castle Coalition issued
five reports relating to eminent domain, cities, and private
developers. Opening the Floodgates: Eminent Domain Abuse in
a Post-Kelo World reports that 5,700+ private properties
were threatened or taken for private development within the
past year, compared with some 10,000 over the preceding 5
years. Cities are wielding it like a club, says IJ.
Justice O’Connor’s dissent predicted that "in the
wake of the decision, any Motel 6 could be taken for a
Ritz-Carlton, any home for a shopping mall, and any farm for a
factory," says IJ.
The other four reports include an overview of the states’
legislative responses to Kelo, and the Eminent Domain Abuse
Survival Guide. Using Kelo, city, state, or federal
government entities can claim tax revenue and job creation as
legitimate reasons to take private property for a
"different private use." The recent executive order
by Pres. Bush is limited to the federal government and cannot
restrain individual states and cities therein.
May 19, 2006 ~ North Texas e-News ~ Charles O’Dell,
Ph.D.
Texas Bill HB 1772 ~ Beware of Special Interest Use of
Eminent Domain
Summary: The NTXe-news.com article called attention to
Texas HB 1772 which was enacted May 24, 2005. An amendment by
Sen. Jeff Wentworth (San Antonio) permits a General Law
Municipality authority to annex property NOT adjacent to the
city limits if a development agreement is entered into between
the city and the developer. It stemmed from a
"situation" in Dripping Springs. Dr. O’Dell calls
for the removal of "pocket annexation" from the
bill.
