House backs eminent domain limits (Texas)

[Judi Lynn]

July 13, 2005, 1:15AM

THE LEGISLATURE
House backs eminent domain limits
If the Senate approves the proposal, Texans will vote on it
By CLAY ROBISON
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau

AUSTIN - Seeking to circumvent a recent, controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision, the Texas House on Tuesday approved a measure to prohibit state or local governments from seizing homes and other private property for economic development purposes.

Reflecting widespread support from Republicans and Democrats, the proposed amendment to the Texas Constitution was approved 132-0 and will go on the Nov. 8 ballot if it wins approval from the Senate.

The Senate was expected to debate a related bill today. That measure would spell out details of the new restrictions should voters approve the constitutional amendment.

"The constitution is to protect the citizens from the government, and I think that is what this accomplishes," said Rep. Frank Corte, R-San Antonio, the proposal's primary sponsor.

"We have an opportunity to be proactive in protecting people's property," he added.
(snip/...)

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3263933
(Free registration required)

[crispini]

1. Wow!

Texas Republicans do something sensible!

Of course, we haven't actually seen the bill yet....

[Bridget Burke]

4. Texas Democrats in the Lege supported it as well.

Although it would go nowhere without Republcan support.

There is an old Texas suspicion about those government men & bankers coming to take your land because they have a piece of paper. The crime is even worse than cattle russlin'--but not as bad as horse stealin' of course.

[PurityOfEssence]

2. This would have scotched the ONLY business deal Junior didn't blow

The ONLY business deal of any size that Ninny-boy didn't fail miserably at was the Texas Ranger stadium, and the only reason that worked was that he muscled people out of much more property than was needed for the site. (Sports are crap; why would ANYONE see a sports stadium as beneficial to the community?)

Upon developing the site, the excess land (fleeced from the rightful owners at a dime on the dollar) was sold for whopper profit.

[Demeter]

3. It's Called Locking The Barn After the Horse's Ass Escapes

[booksenkatz]

5. Too bad this isn't retroactive so they could get their homes back! nt

[zbdent]

6. Funny how a "state's rights" issue became an anchor to the throats of

a "liberal" SCOTUS. Business tells local govt. that they want land for "economic development" (like, say, a ballpark for the Texas Rangers). Points out a "blighted neighborhood" (an area with a few run-down homes, but generally an older area).

Local govt. squashes a bunch of poorer homeowners (generally not Repub voters - urban, ya know) in the face of a big business intent on a land grab.

So the Repubs win in all ways. If the "Liberals" had overturned the lower-court rulings, "they would have been standing in the way of businesses".

It was a no-win situation for the "liberals" - including one being painted as "radical left" despite agreeing with Ken Starr in many decisions and being recommended by Orrin Hatch.