If Perry signs the bill, landowners would have more rights when governments step in to take property through eminent domain, a controversial practice that allows local governments to take and buy land for public projects.
The bill would ensure that landowners receive good-faith offers for condemned property, be compensated for damage done to adjoining property, and have a chance to buy back their land -- at the same price they received -- if it isn't needed in 10 years for the development.
If signed into law, the provision would go into effect Sept. 1. The buyback provision would require a constitutional amendment that would go before voters on Nov. 6.
The measure defines "public use" to keep land from being taken for economic development and creates a process for courts to determine whether initial purchase offers are fair.
It has followed sharp reaction to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2005 in a Connecticut case that said local governments could take private homes and businesses for economic development. That same year, Texas lawmakers passed legislation prohibiting such use, and they came back this session to add further protections.
Tarrant County commissioners will vote formally Tuesday on sending the letter to Perry asking for the veto. Whitley said other counties, including Harris and Denton, are expected to follow suit.
The Texas Municipal League is urging any cities concerned about the bill to send letters to Perry asking for a veto.
"Texas courts have chipped away at property-owner protections for decades," Woolley said. "I believe governmental entities should not operate with a sense of entitlement to my land.
"House Bill 2006 restores these property-owner protections."
Why am I not surprised that Tarrant County is right in the middle of this.
The PA law to limit eminent domain passed after Kelo also limited it to 'public use', to limit transfers from one owner to another for a mall or parking lot, but it didn't limit takings for environmental or preservation reasons. Since PA is working really hard to identify potential Greenways across the state, including contiguous 'wildlife corridors" and buffers, they've left the way open for the radical environmentalists who want to "Re-Wild Pennsylvania". In the 60's when the PA Constitution was re-written they put in language about how one of the Commonwealth's responsibilities was to ensure clean air, clean water and protect, preserve, enhance the natural resources of the state. Today that feel-good language (written when people believed the air was about to become unbreathable due to pollution) is being cited by those who want to take control of all land and return most of it to it's pre-Columbian state. If the Texas law leaves that opening too - the governor should veto it. The Wildlands Project people continue to work to use government money and legal action to get control of land use, and they want to return nearly all of North America to its pre-Columbian state, apparently thinking it was some kind of Utopia then.