|
Will Prop. 11 kill the
Downtown plan?
By Timothy Roberts
A
ballot initiative to limit the use of eminent domain is so
popular across Texas that only one organized group is opposing
it. And that’s because it doesn’t go far enough.
But
Proposition 11, which is on Tuesday’s statewide ballot, has
stirred some feathers at El Paso City Hall.
In an
e-mail exchange between an attorney for Downtown landowners
and Mayor John Cook, the two spar over the city’s potential
use of eminent domain to take land for a redevelopment
project.
“Did you know that El Paso is considered the
poster child for eminent domain abuse in Texas?” wrote El
Paso-born but Dallas-based attorney Stuart Blaugrund, who
represents the Downtown property owners. He sent the e-mail to
reporters Oct. 23, in hopes it would create interest in the
ballot issue. Subsequent correspondence was also sent to
reporters.
“Thank you for creating that myth,” Cook
wrote in reply Oct. 25. The mayor goes on to say that Downtown
interests have paid Blaugrund to come up with the so-called
myth. He closes with: “Please point out the uses of eminent
domain that have made us that poster child.”
In reply,
Blaugrund points to the city’s taking of the A.B. Fall mansion
two years ago and says the city “tried to lowball the Abrahams
in the compensation process.” The mansion at 1725 Arizona in
Central El Paso, built by the only person convicted in the
Teapot Dome scandal during the Harding administration, was
owned by attorney Sib Abraham when the city took the
property.
“One case does not a poster child create,”
wrote Cook.
“You don’t get a pass on abuse of power,”
Blaugrund replied.
“I tire of sparring with such an
unworthy opponent,” wrote Cook.
In an interview,
Blaugrund said approval of the proposition will stop the
city’s Downtown revitalization plan, which was based on heavy
use of eminent domain to take properties across a large swath
of land.
“The adoption of Proposition 11 will
effectively end the ability to force the sale of those
properties,” Blaugrund said. “That kills the plan.”
The city says it has no plan to use eminent domain,
but it will not rule out its use. As of press time, Cook did
not return phone calls.
The powers of eminent domain
gives government the right to take property from private land
owners after compensating them for it at fair market value.
Interest in the subject has grown since the U.S. Supreme Court
refused to stop a Connecticut city from taking homes for use
in private development that the city claimed would benefit
everyone.
Opposition was further stirred up over
concerns that the Trans-Texas Corridor, a massive road, rail
and utility project backed by Gov. Rick Perry, would take
farmers’ land or limit access to their fields. The corridor
has since been scaled back to several smaller projects.
Opponents and even some proponents say that much of
the proposal is already part of Texas law, but putting its
provisions into the state constitution would carry even more
weight. It would change the Texas Constitution to prevent the
use of eminent domain in three specific ways: to aid in a
development that would be in private hands, for the purpose of
economic development or aimed primarily at increasing tax
revenue.
The Texas Municipal League has not taken a
position on Proposition 11.
“Cities don’t do a lot of
economic condemnation,” says Bennett Sandlin, the league’s
general counsel.
Cities were concerned that the change
might limit airport expansion, but the legislation creating
the ballot issue was tweaked to alleviate those concerns,
Sandlin said.
The only visible organized opposition
comes from a group known as Texans United for Reform and
Freedom, or TURF, which is opposed to the establishment of
toll roads in general and the Trans-Texas Corridor in
particular.
It opposes Proposition 11 because it
doesn’t go far enough. According to the TURF, there are too
many loopholes in the proposition.
The measure makes
exceptions for economic development if it is secondary to the
removal of a slum or blighted area. But the proposal fails to
define either economic development or urban blight, says Terri
Hall, TURF’s director.
“The government could still
take land for urban blight and some economic development
purposes,” Hall says. “If we are going to change the Texas
Constitution, we better get it right.”
|