Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Every Thing Else Board
Eminent Domain in Texas
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Frankie" data-source="post: 396351" data-attributes="member: 13"><p>From an outsider's view, that trans Texas thing looks like a money maker for construction people. But most Texas I know don't want it. I found this in an article about the veto. Looks like he vetoed it because land owners would have some redress for the taking of their land. Now that's a shock. :roll: </p><p></p><p>"The eminent domain bill, HB 2006, had enjoyed Perry's support until an amendment was added late in the session that state and local officials said could cost taxpayers billions of dollars. The amendment would have allowed property owners to sue for "diminished access" to their property because of new roads or road construction. Current law requires property owners to show "material or substantial damages" before seeking compensation.</p><p></p><p>Another provision would have allowed the recovery of damages for changes in traffic patterns and visibility of the property from the road. Texas courts have long disallowed this practice because it would make some public projects too expensive to build, Perry said.</p><p></p><p>He said he had alerted legislators who handled the bill to his concerns. But House author Rep. Beverly Woolley, R-Houston, said she feared there wasn't time in the last days of the session to work out compromise language.</p><p></p><p>The bill was strongly supported by Republicans as a response to a controversial decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on private property rights.</p><p></p><p>But Perry said he had received letters from many fast-growth cities and counties asking him to veto it because the cost of constructing projects will increase by more than $1 billion.</p><p></p><p>Sen. Glenn Hegar, R-Katy, who offered the amendment that Perry opposed, said he was stunned by the reaction from local officials. He said the amendment was identical to a failed bill he carried but that "no one testified against it, no one came to visit me, no fiscal implication (was added to it)."</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/4895077.html" target="_blank">http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 95077.html</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Frankie, post: 396351, member: 13"] From an outsider's view, that trans Texas thing looks like a money maker for construction people. But most Texas I know don't want it. I found this in an article about the veto. Looks like he vetoed it because land owners would have some redress for the taking of their land. Now that's a shock. :roll: "The eminent domain bill, HB 2006, had enjoyed Perry's support until an amendment was added late in the session that state and local officials said could cost taxpayers billions of dollars. The amendment would have allowed property owners to sue for "diminished access" to their property because of new roads or road construction. Current law requires property owners to show "material or substantial damages" before seeking compensation. Another provision would have allowed the recovery of damages for changes in traffic patterns and visibility of the property from the road. Texas courts have long disallowed this practice because it would make some public projects too expensive to build, Perry said. He said he had alerted legislators who handled the bill to his concerns. But House author Rep. Beverly Woolley, R-Houston, said she feared there wasn't time in the last days of the session to work out compromise language. The bill was strongly supported by Republicans as a response to a controversial decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on private property rights. But Perry said he had received letters from many fast-growth cities and counties asking him to veto it because the cost of constructing projects will increase by more than $1 billion. Sen. Glenn Hegar, R-Katy, who offered the amendment that Perry opposed, said he was stunned by the reaction from local officials. He said the amendment was identical to a failed bill he carried but that "no one testified against it, no one came to visit me, no fiscal implication (was added to it)." [url=http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/4895077.html]http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 95077.html[/url] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Every Thing Else Board
Eminent Domain in Texas
Top