Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Ruling on siezing private property quickly challenged in Texas

Houston Chronicle:

Texas' cultural commitment to private property rights surfaced quickly Thursday as a state legislator moved to blunt the impact of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that local governments may seize land for private development.

Hours after the court's 5-4 ruling came down, Rep. Frank Corte Jr., R-San Antonio, said he would seek "to defend the rights of property owners in Texas" by proposing a state constitutional amendment limiting local powers of eminent domain, or condemnation.

Houston Mayor Bill White and Harris County Judge Robert Eckels offered assurances that the city and county do not intend to condemn land for private development projects.

But officials in the beachfront town of Freeport, south of Houston, said they would move aggressively to condemn property owned by two seafood companies to clear the way for an $8 million private marina.

The Supreme Court ruled against a group of property owners in New London, Conn., who challenged a city plan to demolish their riverfront homes to make way for offices, a hotel and other commercial buildings.

In the late 60's and early 70's a developer in Houston made tener offers to home owners in an area near downtown Houston that was to become the Greenway Plaza office complex. Many of the houses were bought at what was then substantially above the current "market" value of their homes. The whole project was done without the kind of condemnation aprroved by the court. What the court has done is take away the bargaining power of the property owners . What has happened is not just a transfer of property to a group of other owners for a perceived public good. It is not just a taking of property, but a taking of bargaining power in what should be a commercial transaction. When the property owners said they did not want to sell, what they were reallly saying is not at the price being offered. At some point they would have found the price too attractive to pass up. Then it would become a question of whether the project would be economically viable at that price. Ironicall, the taxing jurisdiction would have come out ahead if it had let busness take its ordinary course since they would have had even higher values to tax.