Comments on: Texas’ Amendment 11: Another Post-Kelo Eminent Domain Reform that Falls Short

By: Elbert Pesick

Elbert Pesick — Thu, 20 May 2010 15:42:15 +0000

Hi there, awesome site. I thought the topics you posted on were very interesting. I tried to add your RSS to my feed reader and it a few. take a look at it, hopefully I can add you and follow.

By: Kathey Borne

Kathey Borne — Sat, 01 May 2010 05:26:48 +0000

Wow..very good…Nice blog and well updated…

By: Winning on appeal isn’t everything: Massey Coal and Kelo disappoint the winners

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:36:07 +0000

[...] That Supreme Court decision became a symbol for property-rights advocates, lending its name to an anti-Kelo property-rights backlash at the state level (such as one of the constitutional amendments Texas passed earlier this month, which was discussed this week …). [...]

By: Johnny Bravo

Johnny Bravo — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:37:10 +0000

Unfortunately, the State of Texas offers very little information about the committee itself on the web. But I can show you a document from the conference committee where two of the Senate members refused to sign off on HJR14/Prop.11. They refused to sign not because Prop 11 wasn't strong enough, but because they thought Prop 11 was too hard on the condemning authorities and took too much of their power to condemn for private development. See HJR14 Signed Committee Report. In case you can't view the document, the two non-signers are Sen. John Whitmire (the dean of the Senate), and Sen. Van de Putte. Sen. Whitmire also threatened to filibuster the initial 2005 legislative attempt at eminent domain reform in the days just after the Kelo decision.

By: JohnKT

JohnKT — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:43:25 +0000

Johnny Bravo: In the Texas case of Prop. 11, State Senator Robert Duncan, chair of the powerful State Affairs committee that oversees such legislation in the upper chamber, worked closely with condemning authorities such as the municipal govt and port authority lobbies to severely weaken what had initially been a very strong bill sponsored by Rep. Frank Corte and passed unanimously by the Texas House. If not for Sen. Duncan of Lubbock, the citizens of Texas would have very likely received much more substantive reform.

Thanks, Johnny Bravo, for more background. State Sen. Robert Duncan of Lubbock, eh? Can you point me to more info on the State Affairs Committee?

By: Johnny Bravo

Johnny Bravo — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:12:49 +0000

In the Texas case of Prop. 11, State Senator Robert Duncan, chair of the powerful State Affairs committee that oversees such legislation in the upper chamber, worked closely with condemning authorities such as the municipal govt and port authority lobbies to severely weaken what had initially been a very strong bill sponsored by Rep. Frank Corte and passed unanimously by the Texas House. If not for Sen. Duncan of Lubbock, the citizens of Texas would have very likely received much more substantive reform.

By: JohnKT

JohnKT — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:33:50 +0000

Thank you very much for this critique. There was so little publicity on all the Amendments this election that it was impossible to know what one was voting for.

The best explanation was that of the League of Women Voters. It explained Prop 11, but not enough for voters to understand the sweep of “blighted areas.”

Sigh. So we voted for a barkless watchdog, hopefully better than nothing.

By: cubanbob

cubanbob — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:27:06 +0000

The only way out is to eliminate blight as a cause for eminent domain along with any and all taxation of the part of the forced upon seller on the gain on their property. Property in blighted areas is rarely worth much so the need for eminent domain is questionable. In addition most of those properties are usually delinquent in their property taxes so they could be seized and sold to pay the delinquent taxes on the court house steps. That the buyer may well be a government that would have seized the property under the current rules is irrelevant. No one is arguing against the forcible sale of property to collect delinquent taxes as long as the seizure is completely within the rules and not rigged to effect an eminent domain seizure.

By: ED Maven

ED Maven — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:22:25 +0000

A correction, Artemus. Pfizer did build its plant – a reasearch lab, across the river Thames from the Fort Trumbull redevelopment site in New London. Now Pfizer has announced that it is closing that plant and transferring its operations to its existing plant in Groton. Why? It’s a consolidation following Pfizer’s takeover of Wyeth pharmaceuticals.

But Pfizer’s plant is not within the infamous Fort Trumbull redevelopment project where Suzette Kelo’s house stood. Still, since catering to the upscale Pfizer employees was the raison d’etre for the redevelopment project, this development puts the kabosh on any hopes of any such redevelopment in the foreseeable future.

$180 million in state and city funds down the tubes for nothing.

By: Floridan

Floridan — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:34:38 +0000

Shorter Somin: Democracy doesn’t work.

By: PersonFromPorlock

PersonFromPorlock — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:33:28 +0000

State legislators have strong incentives to water down eminent domain reforms so that takings that benefit influential interest groups can continue.

That’s not really very strongly put: what the legislators are doing is deliberately writing laws to allow them or their associates to practice graft.

By: Artemus

Artemus — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:05:34 +0000

Pfizer has decided not to build the plant that was supposed to help out New London enough to justify taking away people's private property to give to the drug company. See Pfizer abandons site of infamous Kelo eminent domain taking