When I initially read the post “Dallas to
Houston at 205mph? Maybe…” on the Lone Star Straight blog, I was completely on
board. After all, the author makes several very good points in regards to the
potential the project has to boost Texas’ economy with an estimated “$10
billion economic output during the construction,” and an ongoing “750
jobs and $120 million annually during the operation once they train is
underway.” These numbers are huge and difficult to ignore, but I feel that we
need to be looking at more than just the money.
The part of all of this that gives me pause is the paragraph about people who own property on the proposed route of the speed train and the use of eminent domain. I, myself, own no property so perhaps it is impossible for me to truly identify with these people, but the “eminent domain” part of that is fairly ominous to me. As I did a little further research on what, exactly, that phrase means in Texas, I encountered a lot of confusing legal jargon. One other blog, the TexasAgriculture Law Blog, has a great post clarifying exactly what it means and what the steps on eminent domain are. The author of that blog states “there are three elements of eminent domain under Texas law: (1) The actor must be the state or a private entity authorized to condemn; (2) the property must be taken for public use; and (3) the landowner must receive adequate compensation for the condemned property.”
The FAQ portion of Dawson & Sodd, LLP goes on to say generally considered to be the difference between the market value of the property before and after the taking, considering the property and rights taken and any damages to remaining land not taken. “Market value” is the price a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller. Adequate compensation for lost property or damages to remaining land after the taking is influenced by the type of “taking” that occurs. When an entire property is condemned, the landowner is entitled to receive the market value for the entire property. But if only a portion of the property is condemned, the landowner is compensated for the difference between (1) the market value of the whole property before the taking and (2) the market value of the remaining property after the taking. This allows the landowner to be compensated for both the value of the property and rights taken and also any damage to the value of the landowner’s remaining property after the taking.
I feel that the land owners should be offered the market value of their land or piece of land, plus some additional incentive or annual interest. These people aren’t standing up and saying “hm, I think I want to move. Now I need to list the house.” The government is coming in and saying “hey, dude, out of my way. I’ll take this. Here’s a check for what it’s worth. Don’t worry about the associated pains of packing, finding a new home and moving, nor the memories you have tied to this land. We will just take it off your hands and probably bulldoze it for you.” That just doesn’t sit quite right with me.
The part of all of this that gives me pause is the paragraph about people who own property on the proposed route of the speed train and the use of eminent domain. I, myself, own no property so perhaps it is impossible for me to truly identify with these people, but the “eminent domain” part of that is fairly ominous to me. As I did a little further research on what, exactly, that phrase means in Texas, I encountered a lot of confusing legal jargon. One other blog, the TexasAgriculture Law Blog, has a great post clarifying exactly what it means and what the steps on eminent domain are. The author of that blog states “there are three elements of eminent domain under Texas law: (1) The actor must be the state or a private entity authorized to condemn; (2) the property must be taken for public use; and (3) the landowner must receive adequate compensation for the condemned property.”
The FAQ portion of Dawson & Sodd, LLP goes on to say generally considered to be the difference between the market value of the property before and after the taking, considering the property and rights taken and any damages to remaining land not taken. “Market value” is the price a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller. Adequate compensation for lost property or damages to remaining land after the taking is influenced by the type of “taking” that occurs. When an entire property is condemned, the landowner is entitled to receive the market value for the entire property. But if only a portion of the property is condemned, the landowner is compensated for the difference between (1) the market value of the whole property before the taking and (2) the market value of the remaining property after the taking. This allows the landowner to be compensated for both the value of the property and rights taken and also any damage to the value of the landowner’s remaining property after the taking.
I feel that the land owners should be offered the market value of their land or piece of land, plus some additional incentive or annual interest. These people aren’t standing up and saying “hm, I think I want to move. Now I need to list the house.” The government is coming in and saying “hey, dude, out of my way. I’ll take this. Here’s a check for what it’s worth. Don’t worry about the associated pains of packing, finding a new home and moving, nor the memories you have tied to this land. We will just take it off your hands and probably bulldoze it for you.” That just doesn’t sit quite right with me.
In
short, I am on-board with the speed train, but I believe that we need to take
better care of the people who are losing their land to accommodate this dream.
No comments:
Post a Comment