Texas Steps Up To Kelo
Quotes from the news item.
AUSTIN - Private property owners would be protected from state and local governments seizing their land for economic development purposes under a bill overwhelmingly approved by the Texas House Sunday night.
The bill, drafted in response to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing eminent domain seizures for economic development projects, gained final passage 136-0.
The House version of the eminent domain bill was amended to stop the city of Freeport from seizing waterfront land from a family-owned shrimping company to make way for a private marina project.
The Senate has passed similar legislation, but differences must be worked out in a conference committee before midnight Wednesday when the special session ends.
This was important legislation as I had been reading about the Freeport case. Anyone know if this became law?
posted by KJ @ 12:39 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I can't (yet) tell you about TX, but VA is hopping stupid about the subject and I expect anywhere from 6 to 20 competing bills addressing eminent domain to be introduced next session. Everyone is still lining up their ponies, but expect a legislative stampede like nothing the Old Dominion has seen in 50 years.
Of course, I will represent the interests of The Man.
I have heard from my sources with The Man that The Man is very proud of you spd rdr. Of course, I am hearing this from the litigation section of The Man.
Okay I don't have time to check for sure (lazy) right now but I don't think this got done before the session ended. The governer is going to call another session because they haven't passed a school finance bill yet. The courts threw out the old system.
A day after the Kelo decision was delivered, Freestar Media LLC submitted a proposal in the town of Weare, New Hampshire where majority opinion writer, Justice Souter, owns a farm house. They requested that the town board condemn the land and give it to them, as private developers, who promise to construct the Lost Liberty Hotel in its place. Their tax revenue would no doubt be higher than the reported $2,500 that Justice Souter paid in property taxes last year. It would create employment and attract tourism. The town has a website, and an economic development committee, which has identified its two main goals: 1) Encourage the formation of new businesses, and 2) Promote tourism. However, contrary to its stated goals and the legally sanctioned purpose of economic development, the town’s board turned down the proposal.
So much for poetic justice. Justice Souter’s influence in his community shielded him from his own ruling. No other rational justification can be found.
Thankfully, the legislative branch is now busy at work attempting to shield private property rights from the Supreme Court ruling. It seems that the two may have switched roles, with the House defending the Constitution, and the Supreme Court writing new laws.
I thought I saw Alice the other day! Or maybe it was Justice Souter –skipping in Wonderland, immune to and above the laws he passes.
Post a Comment
<< Home