Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Perry should back up eminent domain talk
thefacts.com ^ | June 22, 2007 | Chris Greene

Posted on 06/22/2007 12:51:46 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Gov. Rick Perry’s veto this week of an eminent domain bill designed to protect landowners left a lot of Texans scratching their heads, and you can lump us in with those feeling dumbfounded.

Perry — who was among those making political hay when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that cities can seize homes under eminent domain for use by private developers and made the issue an emergency item in a special session that same year — had a chance to back his tough talk and posturing on property rights with action. But when push came to powerful shove against business interests, Perry sided against landowners.

Even though the Supreme Court ruled on the side of developers in the 2005 case, it also said states can craft laws that limit eminent domain. That’s what the Texas House — by a vote of 125-25 — and Senate — in a unanimous vote — did in the bill sent to Perry.

Many feel the Trans-Texas Corridor, a project championed by Perry, will bring about mass evictions of Texans from their homes, farms and ranches. The proposal involves more than 4,000 miles of tollways and railways and cuts through many Texans’ private land.

Farmers and the Texas Farm Bureau were especially upset with the veto. Perry, who touts his farming background, is a former state agriculture commissioner.

“The taking of private property has become far too easy in this state,” Kenneth Dierschke, president of the Bureau, said in a statement. “Obviously, there are many powerful interests that prefer it stay that way."

Perry cited opposition to the bill from fast-growing cities and counties who claimed cost of construction projects would rise. His office’s press release also pointed to how the bill expanded damages a landowner could recover from diminished access to roads and changes in traffic patterns and property visibility.

But certainly those factors were weighed by the Legislature, which overwhelmingly acted on the people’s call for protection from eminent domain.

Perry’s acquiescence to big business is no surprise. He talked tough on border security during his re-election campaign, then dramatically changed his tone after the election when talking to business leaders who rely on immigrant labor. And sadly, eminent domain has no doubt been filed in the same place as true property tax relief for Texas homeowners.

One also has to wonder if Perry’s veto is simply payback to legislators who overturned his executive order on mandatory cervical cancer vaccines and spurned other Perry agenda items. If so, it’s just one more black mark for his less-than-inspiring governorship.

This editorial was written by Chris Greene, sports editor of The Facts.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: bigbusiness; cities; counties; eminentdomain; executiveorders; farmers; hpv; kelo; kennethdierschke; legislature; privateproperty; propertyaccess; ranchers; retaliation; rickperry; specialinterests; texas; texasfarmbureau; texashouse; texassenate; transtexascorridor; ttc; tx; txdot; txfb; vaccine; veto
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-29 last
To: Maeve

You Texans need to find a way to impeach this snake Perry.”

I think that this guy Perry and Mayor of San Francisco Newsome are cut from the same bolt of cloth.


21 posted on 06/22/2007 9:26:37 PM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Maeve; TheZMan
You Texans need to find a way to impeach this snake Perry.

Impeachment is too soft for Perry. Gov. Goodhair is well on his way to transforming the state into Texifornia.

I would like say what many of us retired dumbasses think, but I'd probably be arrested and sent to Iraq.

22 posted on 06/23/2007 5:53:00 AM PDT by Sarajevo (my mexican works harder than your mexican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Maeve
"You Texans need to find a way to impeach this snake Perry."

Bravo! It took only three comments to reach the correct answer!!!

23 posted on 06/23/2007 6:30:32 AM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo

“all”...

Nitpick.


24 posted on 06/23/2007 8:19:06 AM PDT by TheZMan (That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo
"I would like say what many of us retired dumbasses think, but I'd probably be arrested and sent to Iraq."

I, of course, have no idea what you are thinking -- but what this "retired dumbass" is thinking would probably put me in the cell next to yours... '-}

25 posted on 06/23/2007 8:44:02 AM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; wolfcreek

The United States is the only industrialized nation whose freight railroads are privately owned and operated. The land to build the railroads was acquired by exercise of eminent domain. A group of investors would seek and receive a charter from the state government to build a route from point A to point B. Much of the funding for these projects came from European state banks (Bank of England in particular). This investor driven approach to serving a legitimate public need was used because the government did not have and could not obtain the capital necessary to build the railroads. I imagine there are not many freepers who would support nationalization of the railroads.

Does a proposed project serve a legitimate public use? If so then why does it matter who owns it?


26 posted on 06/25/2007 4:42:41 AM PDT by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bobjam
“If so then why does it matter who owns it?”

Why should We allow foreign entities to profit from the sweat of our citizens when there are many in this country who could finance the project?

Why is it a bad idea?

A lot of our military hardware is shipped to port via the railroad. Suppose a country, lets say China for example, owned the rail lines. Might there be a major problem if We went to war with said country?

Yes I know the Feds could step in during such an occurrence but, it wouldn’t be an easy transition considering the Chinese could throw a monkey wrench in the computers systems, etc.

27 posted on 06/25/2007 5:13:28 AM PDT by wolfcreek (AMNESTY: See what BROWN can do for you..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek
We allow foreign entities to profit from the sweat of our citizens when there are many in this country who could finance the project?

You are correct. There are a number of U.S. firms that could finance the project. At a higher price. So why are you suggesting we sweat our own citizens in order to keep a foreign firm from profiting off the sweat of our own citizens?

28 posted on 06/25/2007 6:10:25 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

“So why are you suggesting we sweat our own citizens in order to keep a foreign firm from profiting off the sweat of our own citizens?”

2 words> Tech support

Anything I’ve ever had the pleasure of dealing with that has been outsourced = BS.

Plus, judging from some of the work I’ve seen foreign companies do, I’ll pass.


29 posted on 06/25/2007 12:33:55 PM PDT by wolfcreek (AMNESTY: See what BROWN can do for you..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-29 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson