|
|
|
| On
Gov. Rick Perry’s veto of House Bill 2006 |
| “We are
disappointed by the veto of House Bill
2006, which we believe to be
the most significant legislation
recognizing and protecting Texans’ most fundamental
property rights in decades.
“The Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo decision gave government
wide latitude in the exercise of eminent domain to take
people’s property. As a result, Texas property owners were
depending on the state to strengthen property rights
protections to prevent Kelo-style takings from occurring in
Texas.
“Unfortunately, this veto exposes property owners from
Freeport to El Paso to the very real threat of eminent
domain.
“Although the public outcry
against Kelo was overwhelming, many
government entities that are in the business of
taking private property from
its citizens celebrated the Kelo
decision for making their job easier.
They are celebrating again today.
“We look forward to working with the Governor and all
parties through the interim and into next session
on moving Texas to the front of the line when it comes
to protecting our
Constitutional right to private property.
In the meantime, we hope that
Texans will stand up to government
attempts to seize their
property in the name of economic development.” |
Texas Governor Vetoes Eminent Domain Reform
All Texans Remain Vulnerable to Abuse
Institute for Justice & Castle Coalition
Press Release:
http://www.castlecoalition.org/media/releases/6_18_07pr.html
CONTACT: John Kramer; Lisa Knepper
(703) 682-9320
June 18, 2007
Arlington, Va.—On Friday, June 15, 2007,
Texas Governor Rick Perry vetoed HB 2006,
an eminent domain reform measure that overwhelmingly passed both
chambers of the Texas Legislature. The bill was designed to
close a loophole that remained from an earlier bill Perry signed two
years ago in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous Kelo v.
City of New London decision. Perry becomes only the fourth
governor to veto an eminent domain bill since Kelo.
In the three other states, however,
reform still passed when the Iowa
Legislature overrode one veto, New Mexico’s executive
signed other reform legislation this year and Arizona reformed its laws
by citizen initiative.
“With this veto, Governor Perry has
left every home, farm, ranch and small business owner
vulnerable to the abuse
of eminent domain,” said
Steven Anderson, director of the Institute for
Justice’s Castle Coalition, a
national grassroots advocacy group committed to
ending the private-to-private transfer of property using eminent domain.
The bill would have
closed the large loophole that remained
after the enactment of SB 7, the 2005 legislation
that allows local
authorities to forcibly acquire private property
for the purpose of so-called “slum” or “blight” removal.
Under Texas law, the terms “slum” and “blight” are defined so
broadly that they can be applied to any property,
meaning no one’s property is safe. HB 2006 required,
with certain limited exceptions, that all takings be made for a “public
use,” which would have stopped eminent domain abuse throughout the state.
HB 2006 also included procedural and compensation changes,
and it was the latter that Perry cited as the reason for his veto.
“Compensation concerns were totally overblown by government
agencies,” Anderson said. “Comprehensive protection against eminent
domain abuse for all Texans was scuttled because of unfounded fears that
property acquisitions would cost substantially more.
Dollars drive the abuse, and now dollars
drive this veto. In both cases, the property
owners are the ones who end up getting hurt.”
In all, 41 states have passed
legislation responding to the Kelo decision.
For a review of those states and the effectiveness of the
reforms, see the Institute for Justice’s 50-state report card, available
at
http://www.castlecoalition.org/publications/report_card/.
Governor’s veto explanation misses mark
Friday, August 3, 2007
By Kenneth Dierschke TFB
President
Gov. Perry’s explanation of his veto
of the eminent domain bill
on editorial pages statewide was almost as astonishing as his
decision to strike down House Bill 2006 in the first place.
The governor has done a great
disservice to rural and urban property owners.
Gov. Perry has said a great deal about private
property rights, yet he rejected the opportunity
to sign the most significant property rights legislation in more than a
decade. HB 2006 passed the Texas House
with 125 out of 150 votes. The Senate passed it
unanimously. Few bills get
through the Legislature with that kind of support.
Despite reports that he
intended to veto the bill, many of us could not square that with what
the governor has often said about property rights protection.
The governor knew that many of the groups supporting HB 2006 have been
his supporters. Yet, we were never contacted by the governor’s office
about his concerns. In fact, our request to meet with him late in the
session and prior to the veto fell on deaf ears.
It is not true that HB 2006 had
nothing to do with the U.S. Supreme Court Kelo decision of 2005. That
case allowed the taking of property in Connecticut
for economic development. We need to stop
even the potential for that in Texas,
and we mistakenly
believed the governor was our ally.
Some Kelo protections were adopted in
special session in 2005, but that was only a beginning. HB 2006
finished the job by defining public use. The bill closed the
loopholes left by the prior legislation.
Kelo was only part of the story
though. It was a Texas Supreme Court decision, the Schmidt case
of 1993, that did the most damage to Texas property rights.
It stripped away the right of Texas
property owners to be compensated for diminished value of their
property, including loss of access. It was this
situation that the amendment by Sen. Glenn Hegar was designed to fix.
The governor cites this as his reason for the veto.
The governor and others have said
that the Hegar amendment would have cost too much. Does fairness
have a price tag? Prior to Schmidt in 1993, roads were still
being built. Public projects were completed without breaking the bank.
Why is fairness too expensive now?
The first number thrown out by the
bill’s opponents in advance of the veto was $100 million. Before long,
they were talking about a billion dollars. In his editorial, the
governor refers to plural billions. Yet, there has not been any official
estimate.
It is all too common to make
lawyers the culprit when opposing a popular idea. They are not
to blame this time, though. HB 2006, in
fact reduces the amount a lawyer would earn on a condemnation case,
because they are only paid on the
difference between the final settlement and the initial offer.
A lawyer’s portion
of fair market value would not interest
legions of attorneys, contrary to the story
the governor is attempting to
spin.
The governor’s suggestion
that HB 2006 would not have affected rural areas leaves me flabbergasted.
The governor,
through his Trans-Texas Corridor, is preparing to
launch the largest taking of private property in
the history of the state. Does anyone believe these
roads will not bisect rural acres?
Bulldozing rural Texas won’t
stop with the TTC. The 19
reservoir sites designated by the Legislature
are not in Mesquite or Rosenberg.
This land will be taken from rural
property owners. Without the protections of HB
2006, it might well be done at a forced discount.
Rural and urban property
owners share the risk of takings and unfair
compensation. It really doesn’t matter where the property is
located if the law does not require fairness.
The governor suggests that
the Legislature strike a balance that allows property owners to be
treated with fairness and respect. We welcome that. We
suspect, however, that those who
stand to profit from taking private property
intend to leave the burden squarely on the backs of Texas
property owners.
The veto of HB 2006
has severely damaged Gov. Perry’s reputation
as a defender of property rights. The only way we know he can
repair it is to sign an eminent domain bill in 2009 that is very similar
to the one he just vetoed. Anything short of that is political smoke and
mirrors!
|
