Perry revs
bulldozers;
what about landowners?
July 17, 2007
Guest
Column:
Kenneth
Dierschke / Waco Tribune
Gov. Rick 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. 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. 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 state Sen. Glenn Hegar
was designed to fix.
The governor and others have said
that the Hegar amendment would have
cost too much. Does fairness have a
price tag?
Prior to the Schmidt ruling 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 a $100 million cost.
Before long, they were talking about
a billion dollars. In his
commentary, the governor refers to
“billions.” Yet, there has not been
any official estimate.
It is all too common to make
lawyers the culprits when opposing a
popular idea. They are not to blame
this time, though.
HB 2006 in fact would have
reduced the amount a lawyer would
earn on a condemnation case, because
lawyers 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 veto of HB 2006 has severely
damaged 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.
Kenneth Dierschke, a grain and
cotton farmer from San Angelo, is
president of the Texas Farm Bureau.