By Gene Hall
Director of Public Relations
Fairness is a concept that influences human and business relationships. Without it, those relationships break down. That is exactly what has happened with eminent domain law in Texas, according to representatives from 16 Texas agricultural groups seeking eminent domain reform.
The first of several meetings organized by Texans for Property Rights was held in Jourdanton Thursday, Oct 27.
Landowners were briefed on the current state of eminent domain law and the efforts to change it in the next session of the Texas Legislature. The new coalition will push for a law that would require property-taking condemning entities that lose in court to pay the legal costs of affected property owners.
Texas is a state proud of its heritage of property ownership, and most Texans probably believe they are secure in their property rights. In Jourdanton, they learned that fairness and property rights are often casualties in the eminent domain process.
Eminent domain is a principle well established in law. Virtually everyone recognizes that public entities must sometimes take private property for the public good. The most recognizable instances are roads, airports or schools. However, many private companies, along with government, have the power of eminent domain. These include utilities, pipeline companies, drainage districts and others.
San Antonio attorney Arthur Uhl, a member of the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association (TSCRA), one of the organizing groups, addressed the Jourdanton meeting.
“Eminent domain laws are really skewed to the favor of the condemning authority in Texas, which are primarily governmental entities and as far as common carriers go, can include private companies as well,” Uhl said.
He noted that both the U.S. and Texas constitutions provide for the taking of private property so long as just and adequate compensation is paid. The Texas Constitution goes as far as including damage to and destruction of property.
“The problem is what’s public and what’s not has become ambiguous and unfair to the landowner,” Uhl said.
He laid out one case of a property owner at odds with a company over electrical transmission lines. The owner requested compensation in the amount of $393,165. The powerline company offered $54,731, less than a fifth of what the owner believed was fair. He took them to court. The jury agreed with the property owner, awarding the full amount he’d asked for. Unfortunately, he was saddled with significant legal fees and court costs.
Not every property owner can afford to do this.
When owners receive a “low ball” offer from a property taker, he or she is faced with a troubling decision. It can come down to taking the low offer or incurring legal expenses to fight, with the outcome unknown.
“We’ve had several examples that have actually gone to the Supreme Court where private companies have used their common carrier status to condemn property without much regard for landowners’ rights,” Uhl said.
Legislation will be introduced in the next legislative session to address this situation.
Under the proposed legislation, if the property taker has a low ball offer and loses in court, they would be required to compensate the landowner for legal costs in addition to the court award. Currently, 22 states provide this level of protection for property owners’ rights.
In the meantime, the Texans for Property Rights website is a central collection point for stories and concerns about abuse of eminent domain. Texas landowners are encouraged to share their stories and lend their voices to fight for achieving eminent domain fairness.
Texas Farm Bureau (TFB) is one of the groups involved in Texans for Property Rights.
“Farmers and ranchers expect fairness in their dealings. Eminent domain is currently a wild card and there’s no way to plan for it and no easy way to deal with it,” TFB President Russell Boening said.
One thing is certain, unresolved, this controversy will grow along with the Texas population. Since the year 2000, the Lone Star State’s population has grown by 4.3 million people. That’s a number equal to the combined populations of Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont and both Dakotas.
Thanks for this valuable information. Keep up the good work!
While I appreciate the sentiment, covering legal costs if a landowner prevails in court hardly addresses the fairness issue. As a landowner who has been subject to eminent domain, the process is not transparent, not documented in a formal and public way, favors the condemning authority and always includes commercial profit-making entities riding on the backs of condemned landowners. These projects should be handled as if they are commercial projects. Only if the companies fail to gain access to property through a commercial process should there be an opportunity to more forward with eminent domain. Then the value of the property should be assessed through the lens of the entire project. What is the ongoing value and how many others are profiting from the project Transmission lines that carry wind power are a perfect example. The landowners with wind turbines are profiting in an ongoing revenue stream, the power companies are profiting from an ongoing revenue stream, the construction companies are profiting… The landowners providing land for the transmission lines are left to battle eminent domain and have a one-time payment for the right of way for construction that devalues their property permanently. They are subject to the ridiculous administrative hearing process that mostly profits all the lawyers in the mix. When the property owners are on the route selected they fall subject to the bullying of the likes of Oncor and others who manage these projects. Any Texan who is proud of its limited government should learn more about this. It is a completely unfair and is ridiculous to think that getting legal fees back if you win in court battle is an improvement.