Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

[desflood]

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

By HOPE YEN
The Associated Press
Thursday, June 23, 2005; 11:43 AM



WASHINGTON -- A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.

The 5-4 ruling _ assailed by dissenting Justice Sanday Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America _ was a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including _ but by no means limited to _ new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

"It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area," he said.

O'Connor, who has often been a key swing vote at the court, issued a stinging dissent, arguing that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

"We're pleased," attorney Edward O'Connell, who represents New London Development Corporation, said in response to the ruling.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

O'Connor was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.

New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.

The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.

City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.

The case was one of six resolved by justices on Thursday. Still pending at the high court are cases dealing with the constitutionality of government Ten Commandments displays and the liability of Internet file-sharing services for clients' illegal swapping of copyrighted songs and movies. The Supreme Court next meets on Monday.

[MannyIsGod]

Yay. Win for the developers out and there and a reduction of personal property rights. That's just fucking grand. The court really fucked this one up.

So, what was that about the US being the freest country in the world?

[SWC Bonfire]

This blows monkey balls. Sort of like Rick Perry taking hundreds of thousands of acres from landowners to build his superhighway to nowhere.

[mookie2001]

eminent domain has always meant they can level your house and sell it to a more profitable private business, as long as they label your shit "blighted" which can mean anything

[Useruser666]

Fuck the developers!

[MannyIsGod]

eminent domain has always meant they can level your house and sell it to a more profitable private business, as long as they label your shit "blighted" which can mean anything
bullshit. It's meant it can be seized by the city for projects that are public in nature such as highways, but not for private ventures. This is a whole new thing we've come into, and it reaks of shit.

[mookie2001]

well the new interpretation of eminent domain
and thats just from a dateline i saw a couple years ago

www.ij.org

[Clandestino]

actually a few years ago a city did this for wal-mart... i think it is bullshit too... just like the city of san antonio taking people's land/houses away for that new college campus on the southside

[Guru of Nothing]

Amazing that 5 out 9 justices support this decision, when I'm willing to bet not 1 in 10 everywhere else would.

Hell, I'll even bet me and NBADan are on the same page on this issue.

[Mr. Ash]

bullshit. It's meant it can be seized by the city for projects that are public in nature such as highways, but not for private ventures. This is a whole new thing we've come into, and it reaks of shit.

Actually, he's right. They have always been able to sponsor urban renewal by using the "blighted" notation, taking (and compensating for) the land, and turning it over to private hands for renovation. The "whole new thing" is taking land that is not "blighted", but that could be used for a more economically beneficial commerical enterprise - regardless of the current condition of the land. The test case was, what, shorefront houses that were EDed for an office building that would bring "more tax revenues and jobs". Essentially, they can ED just about anything now.

[The Ressurrected One]

Amazing that 5 out 9 justices support this decision, when I'm willing to bet not 1 in 10 everywhere else would.
Yep. All the Liberals...including Reagan's gone-soft appointee, Kennedy.

Hell, I'll even bet me and NBADan are on the same page on this issue.
I doubt it, he's in love with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and she voted yea.

All the conservative justices voted no and O'Connor blasted her Liberal counterparts.

Eminent Domain was only supposed to apply to projects that were for the PUBLIC good. Somewhere along the way, the tax and spend liberals decided that a megaplex that generated more in sales and property tax than a bunch of homes was an eminent domain issue.

Use to, it meant they could only take your home to build roads, sewer plants, etc...

Way to go Socialis...er, Progressiv....I mean, Liberals!

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao Conservatives with money interests in development have never tried to make that happen, have they Yoni?

[The Ressurrected One]

:lmao Conservatives with money interests in development have never tried to make that happen, have they Yoni?
Every conservative on the court was opposed. And, so was I.

What does that tell you?

[MannyIsGod]

That tells me that you and every conservative on the court was opposed. If you don't think that people who classify themselves as conservatives are a main driving force in the development in situations such as the case that came to court you are being dillusional.

I do feel the arguement they use of being better for the community has shallow liberal appeal, but thats about it.

You always feel a need to place the blame on one group but thats far from the case. But, I won't deprive you from thinking that conservatives do no wrong and that liberals are the cause of everything negative.

[xrayzebra]

That tells me that you and every conservative on the court was opposed. If you don't think that people who classify themselves as conservatives are a main driving force in the development in situations such as the case that came to court you are being dillusional.

I do feel the arguement they use of being better for the community has shallow liberal appeal, but thats about it.

You always feel a need to place the blame on one group but thats far from the case. But, I won't deprive you from thinking that conservatives do no wrong and that liberals are the cause of everything negative.

Manny read this real slow and you may understand why the Libs like this
decision: T A X E S=big government=more spending on the masses. They
could care less (the Libs) how they accomplish the goals, just so long as
they do. The Libs don't hate big business (er-ah --- Ted Turner). Or
big developers, just those that oppose them.....look who has all the money
in Congress on the Dim-o-crap side......

Oh, but I am sure you reall deep down in your heart don't mind the
decision either, what the hell it is only another freedom lost thru
the "living" constitution. Like their little decision based on "other countries
laws".

[mookie2001]

Manny read this real slow and you may understand why the Libs like this
decision: T A X E S=big government=more spending on the masses.

LIBS? like big spending and big gov, are you sure about that
recently
since 2000?
is that true

[Guru of Nothing]

This is one of those items that pop up from time to time where democrats and republicans just wink at one another.

Fuck all y'all.

[mookie2001]

guru thats where "neo" comes in
a total opposite of core republican values, fiscal conservation, limited government
the other ones just turn their head, which is even worse

[MannyIsGod]

Manny read this real slow and you may understand why the Libs like this
decision: T A X E S=big government=more spending on the masses. They
could care less (the Libs) how they accomplish the goals, just so long as
they do. The Libs don't hate big business (er-ah --- Ted Turner). Or
big developers, just those that oppose them.....look who has all the money
in Congress on the Dim-o-crap side......

Oh, but I am sure you reall deep down in your heart don't mind the
decision either, what the hell it is only another freedom lost thru
the "living" constitution. Like their little decision based on "other countries
laws".
You're right. Conservatives never have their hands in big business or development. You're so full of shit. We've had the largest increse in governemtn spending in quite sometime under a republican president yet you still want to view things through you're fucked up so called conservative prism.

You can post all you want about assumptions and what I feel deep down that has no basis in actions but one look at what is actually happens in our so called free world is enough to realize what is actualy going on.

In other words, Fuck you.

[The Ressurrected One]

You're right. Conservatives never have their hands in big business or development. You're so full of shit.
Not where it counts, Manny. On the freakin' Supreme Court! Sorry, the "Conservatives-do-it-too" argument won't work in this area. There are only nine of them and they voted on ideological lines. Conservatives against giving government power over the individual and liberals for taking away individual liberty and giving it to government. It's that black and white; that absolute; that simple. Don't try to obfuscate the issue with your idiocy.

[MannyIsGod]

Not where it counts, Manny. On the freakin' Supreme Court! Sorry, the "Conservatives-do-it-too" argument won't work in this area. There are only nine of them and they voted on ideological lines. Conservatives against giving government power over the individual and liberals for taking away individual liberty and giving it to government. It's that black and white; that absolute; that simple. Don't try to obfuscate the issue with your idiocy.
:lmao

You're right, Yoni. The driving force behind development definetly has NOTHING to do with this ruling. Nothing!

[spurster]

This is a messed up ruling. If the area is actually "blighted" that is one thing, and if the area enters the public domain that is another thing, but to demolish a good neighborhood and give it to private business, that does not pass the smell test.

[xrayzebra]

MannyIsGod said "In other words, Fuck you" you haven't got the balls or pecker to
handle the job my boy and not only that you are just not my type.

But getting back to the point. Just because some in Congress call themselves
conservatives don't make it so. Both parties have spent enough money on junk to
make anyone's head spin. I will concede one point to you, the development crowd
will make a lot of money off this decision (as we have lost one of our basic, guiding
principles: personal ownership) but the Libs have once again proven that "big
government" is their God. George Will said it better than I ever could: "Liberalism triumphed yesterday. Government became radically unlimited in seizing the very kinds of private property that should guarantee individuals a sphere of autonomy against government.


Conservatives should be reminded to be careful what they wish for. Their often-reflexive rhetoric praises "judicial restraint" and deference to — it sometimes seems — almost unleashable powers of the elected branches of governments. However, in the debate about the proper role of the judiciary in American democracy, conservatives who dogmatically preach a populist creed of deference to majoritarianism will thereby abandon, or at least radically restrict, the judiciary's indispensable role in limiting government"

My own thoughts are that government has stuck their nose into everyday life for
way too long. They continue to take away basic freedoms, mostly of choice. They
are small things to most, but to me and others, they take away as I said: your/my
choices. Like wearing seat belts, having car insurance, air bags, what kind of car
you drive (yes they do tell you what kind of car you drive), where you can pray,
who you can hire as an employer, even taken to the very extreme, give a compliment to someone in the workplace (because if might be used against you in a court of
law). Government has made water a scarce item thru their efforts here in San
Antonio. Oh, I could ramble on and on. But I will leave it at that for now. But remember one thing Manny, if you do screw me I expect to be kissed (by your girl
friend, not you.....LOL.

[CaptainHook]

this is government imposed socialism

[Guru of Nothing]

So, absolutely nobody here likes this decision, except maybe Dan. He's oddly quite.

[Nbadan]

So, absolutely nobody here likes this decision, except maybe Dan. He's oddly quite.

Just for the record, I disagree with this decision. However, George Will calling this a liberal victory is a joke considering that we have a 5-4 Republican majority on the Supreme Court.

[Nbadan]

Also, local Democratic legislators will introduce a bill in the next legislative session that will protect Texas property owners from preditory developers looking to take advantage of this law.

[mookie2001]

well george will is old, in newsweek and loves baseball


he gets a pass on everything

[SWC Bonfire]

Government has made water a scarce item thru their efforts here in San
Antonio.

No, over a million idiots watering their lawns in San Antonio has made water a scarce issue. So much so that they have come to Gonzales County, leased water rights from a few induviduals, and can pump water from the Carrizo-Wilcox, which doesn't have water restrictions and takes over 20 years for water to reach the lowest part from the surface - unlike the Edwards.

A few years ago, the citizens of Gonzales county elected a water board to keep that from happening. They ended up turning around and selling the rights out from under the people they were elected by.

Water is the new oil. One of the members of the water board just happened to have 5000 acres over the deepest and thickest part of the carrizo aquifer. SAWS is planning on pumping from there.

We don't mind sharing our water, but the concern is that the water levels in the upper/shallower areas of the aquifer will drop substantially, along with potability.

[SWC Bonfire]

This is a messed up ruling. If the area is actually "blighted" that is one thing, and if the area enters the public domain that is another thing, but to demolish a good neighborhood and give it to private business, that does not pass the smell test.

I don't like the fact that "good neighborhood" is subjective.

[Nbadan]

http://www.creators.com/0619/CB/CB0624ag.gif

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050624/englehart.jpg

[SWC Bonfire]

I finally agreed with something Nbadan posted.

[Nbadan]

It's bound to happen to the best of us..

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050626/stahler.gif

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050624/gorrell.gif

[The Ressurrected One]

LMAO (http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html)

[Nbadan]

Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

-------
The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

:lol

[word]

No, over a million idiots watering their lawns in San Antonio has made water a scarce issue. So much so that they have come to Gonzales County, leased water rights from a few induviduals, and can pump water from the Carrizo-Wilcox, which doesn't have water restrictions and takes over 20 years for water to reach the lowest part from the surface - unlike the Edwards.

A few years ago, the citizens of Gonzales county elected a water board to keep that from happening. They ended up turning around and selling the rights out from under the people they were elected by.

Water is the new oil. One of the members of the water board just happened to have 5000 acres over the deepest and thickest part of the carrizo aquifer. SAWS is planning on pumping from there.

We don't mind sharing our water, but the concern is that the water levels in the upper/shallower areas of the aquifer will drop substantially, along with potability.

SA is going to start getting water from Canyon Lake which will make up about 30% of it's water supply. If you can find it, there was a GREAT series on PBS about Rivers in Texas and the whole water rights thing came up. Funny story, back in the early 90's there was a catfish farm north of San Antonio that had unrestricted water rights and lowered the Edwards Aquifer by 30% in just a couple of years till they shut that baby down.

Good documentary.

[xrayzebra]

SA is going to start getting water from Canyon Lake which will make up about 30% of it's water supply. If you can find it, there was a GREAT series on PBS about Rivers in Texas and the whole water rights thing came up. Funny story, back in the early 90's there was a catfish farm north of San Antonio that had unrestricted water rights and lowered the Edwards Aquifer by 30% in just a couple of years till they shut that baby down.

Good documentary.

They shut it down by buying the water rights, guy and his partner got
rich off that little farm.

[Nbadan]

They shut it down by buying the water rights, guy and his partner got
rich off that little farm.

Water rights are the new 'white gold'. Land owners with primary water rights will be the new Jeb Clampett's of the 21st century.

[Opinionater]

IMHO, this is bad news and the little guy just got smaller.

[word]

Pssst...Toyota did the same thing in San Antonio.

Here's the deal. Developer/Manufacturer wants some land and offers to buy out the homeowners. All agree but as time goes on there's always a few who wants 5x or 10x the value of their land.

This ruling, as is my understanding, protects property owners from their fellow property owners. The lawsuit was one of property owners against property owners.

Can a corporation go in and force 100% of people that doen't want to sell to sell their land sell ? No.

What it's about is, when YOU and 95% of your neighbors want to sell and 5% don't...those 5% can be forced to sell.

It prevents the escalating cost of buying out landowners and people holding out to get a value beyond what their property is worth.

It's simply a decision for THAT particular case, it's not a blanket 'corporations can make you sell your land' at will, thing.

The attempt to grab Justice Souters land doesn't hold up because that's the ONLY land they want. So, that would be like 100% of homeowners saying...no. And so far, only the government has THAT kind of stroke.

This ruling doesn't change that. Tempest in a teapot.

[JoeChalupa]

I've heard too many, yes even republicans, that say this is going to be bad for the people and I tend to agree with them.

[Vashner]

The only way to really fix this is to amend the constitution to protect personal real estate property. Only a strong public need should force someone out... not a commercial venture for profit.

[scott]

Can anyone recall how the Texas Rangers got their stadium built while President Bush was part owner?

[Nbadan]

According to baseball-statistics.com:

Cost: $191 million

Public financing: $135 million (71%) from a one-half-cent sales tax increase in the city of Arlington over 12 to 15 years

Private financing: $56 million (29%) from the Rangers owners

From a 1997 Texas Observer article by Robert Brice...


But through the Arlington stadium deal, Bush, who owns 1.8 percent of the Rangers, has been personally enriched by using the "governing elite" and the "central bureaucracy" not only to confiscate land for private purposes, but to get a huge public subsidy for a stadium that generates profits for himself and the Texas Rangers. Though Bush’s present ownership percentage of the team is relatively small, the asset represents a large part of his personal wealth; moreover, Bush’s deal with the team includes a provision that will almost certainly multiply his future ownership interest to 11 percent.

Briefly, here’s what happened on the Ballpark deal. Bush and his partners in the Rangers convinced Arlington officials to:

• Pass a half cent sales tax to pay for 70 percent of the stadium;

• Use the government’s powers of eminent domain to condemn land the Rangers couldn’t or didn’t want to buy on the open market;

• Give the Rangers control over what happens in and around the stadium;

• Allow the Rangers to buy the stadium (which cost $191 million to construct) for just $60 million;

Finally, after twelve years as the sole occupant and primary beneficiary of the stadium project, the Rangers, a privately owned business, can take title to the most expensive stadium ever built in Texas for the $60 million worth of rent and upkeep they will have already paid the city.

Since he became governor, Bush has not forgotten the Rangers. Although he put his stocks and other assets in a blind trust when he took office, he kept under his own control his ownership interest in the Rangers (held through a company called GWB Rangers, Inc.) Based on published estimates of his net worth, that interest represents his single most valuable asset. According to his most recent financial disclosure filing with the Texas Ethics Commission, Bush’s limited partnership interest in the Rangers went into the blind trust in January of 1995. But he didn’t transfer his general partnership interest because, as he attempted to explain in a brief press conference at the Governor’s Mansion on April 11, that would have been an "unnecessary" change in ownership. And a change in ownership, he said, "would have required a vote of the baseball owners to do so. And it became unnecessary. We just didn’t think it was necessary to get that vote. Secondly, I own it. I mean, there’s no question I own it. . . So it’s not necessary." (It’s worth remembering here that the major league baseball owners as a group constitute a government-protected monopoly.)

Necessary or not, Bush’s ownership interest in the Rangers may yet prove an embarrassing entanglement. The Rangers are currently arguing with the City of Arlington and the Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority (ASFDA) over who will pay a $4.98 million jury award to the Mathes family, which owned thirteen acres of land condemned in 1991 by the ASFDA and now covered primarily by parking lots used by stadium visitors. The jury’s award, made in May of last year, now stands at $7.2 million and is growing, with accumulated interest, at $1,800 per day. A related lawsuit, known as Ramshire N.V. vs. B/R Rangers Associates Ltd., filed in 1994 in Tarrant County against Bush and the other owners of the Rangers, could force the Governor to testify under oath about the events that led up to the stadium project.



The Windup

During his campaign against Governor Ann Richards, Bush took every opportunity to remind voters of his participation in the Ballpark project. "When all those people in Austin say ‘He ain’t never done anything,’ well, this is it," Bush told R. G. Ratcliffe of the Houston Chronicle in late 1993, as he walked around the stadium.

Bush got into the Rangers deal in March 1989, when he helped arrange a syndicate that purchased the team for $89 million from Fort Worth oil man Eddie Chiles. Bush invested $600,000, which bought him a position as one of the two managing general partners of the Rangers organization, a job that paid him $200,000 per year. In addition to the money, of course, Bush brought other major assets to the table: his presidential name and Texas political influence.

But Bush also had a huge incentive to raise the value and profitability of the Rangers franchise. According to a May 8, 1994 article published in the Houston Chronicle, under the terms of his agreement with the Rangers, once his partners recoup their investment, Bush’s share of the club will jump from less than 2 percent to more than 11 percent. The Rangers organization declined to confirm Bush’s current ownership percentage.

Over the past few years, the value of the Rangers franchise has surged, in large part because of the lucrative arrangement the team made for the Ballpark at Arlington. After the stadium was completed in September of 1993, the value of the Rangers jumped from $106 million to $132 million, according to the annual assessment of major league sports franchises done by Financial World magazine. The magazine’s most recent valuation, in May of last year, put the franchise’s value at $138 million. If Bush’s ownership is now 11 percent, his share of the club is currently worth $15.18 million, a 25-fold return on his original investment in just eight years. The Rangers say they have not yet paid any dividends to the team’s twenty-nine owners. Thus, Bush’s stake in the club is likely still 1.8 percent, currently worth $2.48 million—a four-fold return on his original investment.

The stadium deal came about because the Rangers were determined to get out of Arlington Stadium, a former minor league ballpark—which had once been sufficient to lure them away from their old home of Washington, D.C., where they played as the Washington Senators. The Rangers owners began talking to other cities about the possibility of relocating the team in exchange for a new stadium. Eager to keep the team in Arlington, Mayor Richard Greene agreed in October of 1990 to a deal that included increasing the local sales tax by a half-cent. In January of 1991, Arlington voters approved the sales tax increase—which will raise $135 million of the stadium’s $191 million price tag—by a margin of almost 2 to 1.

But local approval wasn’t the only hurdle the Rangers had to clear. They needed legislative approval to create a financing authority that could issue bonds. In April of 1991, the Rangers shepherded through the Legislature a bill written by Arlington State Representative Kent Grusendorf, which would create the Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority, a quasi-governmental entity endowed with the power of eminent domain. Shortly after the bill was signed into law by former Governor Ann Richards, three parcels of land located near the stadium, nearly thirteen acres in all, were condemned by the ASFDA. The land was owned by two companies, Ramshire and Clairwood, created for the benefit of a series of trusts. Those trusts, in turn, benefit the heirs of television magnate Curtis Mathes.

Among court documents is an unsigned Rangers memo by a team representative, discussing the history of the Mathes tracts. The representative notes that in his first contact with the Mathes family concerning the land, on November 6, 1990, "I was not well received." The memo goes on to say that the ASFDA’s appraiser assigned the land a value of $3.16 per square foot, for a total value of $1.515 million. "An offer was made by the Authority at this price. This offer was rejected & the Sellers countered with $2,835,000.00 for all three tracts, i.e.: $5.31 p.s.f." In mid-December, the ASFDA offered the Mathes heirs just $817,220 for the three tracts, far below even what the ASFDA’s first appraiser had suggested. The Mathes family refused to sell, and the ASFDA seized the land through eminent domain.

Glenn Sodd, a Corsicana attorney who represents the Mathes family, says he has found little evidence that Bush was directly involved in the decisions to condemn the property for the stadium. But he adds, "What happened to my folks was pretty audacious. It was the first time in Texas history that the power of eminent domain has been used to assist a private organization like a baseball team."

Last May, a Tarrant County jury found that the sports authority’s offer of $817,220 for the Mathes property was too low, and it awarded the Mathes heirs $4.98 million, plus accumulated interest. For the past year, the city of Arlington and the Rangers have been arguing over who will pay the tab.

Arlington Deputy City Manager Bill Studer, who also serves as executive director of the ASFDA, told Metroplex reporters in March that the city expects the Rangers to pay the jury award. But Tom Schieffer, the president and current general partner of the club, thinks differently. "Our position is, that is a judgment that’s against the sports authority, not the city or the Rangers," he told the Observer. "The sports authority has to pay that." Yet Studer appears to be in no hurry to talk to the Rangers about the dispute. On April 3, nearly a year after the Tarrant County jury decided the Mathes heirs were owed $4.2 million more than the ASFDA offered, Studer told the Observer, "We haven’t discussed it at all with the Rangers at this point."

While the two stadium allies contemplate liability, both sides in the lawsuit have appealed the verdict. Sodd’s clients are claiming the land should never have been taken in the first place. If the appeals court agrees with them, they could seek millions of dollars from the ASFDA and the city for the loss of the use of their property. In addition, since their land was part of the collateral upon which the bonds were issued, the whole deal underlying the stadium could fall apart.

Meanwhile, the city of Arlington is appealing the verdict. Jeanene McIntyre, assistant city attorney, said "The appeal is based on our belief that the judgment given to the Mathes family was excessive."



Property Rights Foul Ball

Of all the issues surrounding the stadium construction, the issue of governmental power and eminent domain is the most troublesome. The Republican Party has long advocated less government intrusion into the property rights of citizens. Bush actively campaigned for governor on a property rights agenda. In October 1994, he told members of the Texas Association of Business, "I understand full well the value of private property, and its importance not only in our state but in capitalism in general, and I will do everything I can to defend the power of private property and private property rights when I am the governor of this state."

But evidence in the Mathes case suggests that the Rangers owners were planning to condemn the Mathes’ land and other tracts as least six months before the ASFDA was created. In an October 26, 1990, memo to Tom Schieffer, Mike Reilly, an Arlington real estate broker and part owner of the Rangers, said of the Mathes property, "In this particular situation our first offer should be our final offer. . . If this fails, we will probably have to initiate condemnation proceedings after the bond election passes."

Reilly’s memo was written nearly three weeks before the Arlington city council called for a referendum on the sales tax proposal for the stadium, and a full three months before the referendum went before voters, yet it assumes the proposal will pass and condemnation will be a legal option. In his memo, Reilly also suggests that Schieffer should inform Arlington city officials that the team owners will expect also effective control—by city ordinance—of any neighboring land they won’t own outright. Reilly wrote, "The Rangers want the City to establish development standards. . . that you can have input on. By doing this, no one within a certain radius of the ballpark development could get a plat or building permit approval without the City’s approval. The ‘development standards’ established by ordinance would give you a tremendous amount of ‘quiet’ control over the land parcels you do not own in the area" [emphases in original].

On November 7, Reilly wrote another memo to Schieffer regarding the Mathes property, saying he had spoken to Jane Mathes Kelton, and since she was not being cooperative, in Reilly’s judgment, he believed "the City will have to condemn her land," and therefore Schieffer should "get the City" to hire condemnation attorneys. Apparently wary of any competition for the land parcels, Reilly also advised Schieffer to tell Bob Bennett, the president of Six Flags Over Texas, that the Rangers "plan to condemn this land so he will not waste his time" talking with the Mathes family about buying the property. (The Mathes’ land sits next to land owned by Six Flags, and family members had spoken to Six Flags officials about acquiring their property for use in the amusement park.)

In his memos, Reilly appears confident that the Rangers were used to calling city hall to "get the City" to do the team’s bidding—and expecting the local media to cooperate. In the November 7 memo, he reminds Schieffer "to get Greene [Arlington Mayor Richard Greene] to get some clean up crews out on the property under my supervision. . . so people can see how beautiful it really will be. It could help us pass the election and I’m sure some newspaper person could tour the site with you and a nice story would result."

Asked about the Reilly memos, Schieffer said, "Mike Reilly is not the Rangers. Reilly was a person we were using to try to option up land. Whatever Mike Reilly’s thoughts or opinions were, were not necessarily the opinions of the Rangers."

In defense of their actions, Rangers officials and city officials insist that the stadium is a "public use"—akin to a roadway, school, or city hall—and thus, condemnation was an appropriate use of governmental power. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that citizens may not be deprived of their property "without due process of law; nor shall property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The Texas Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 17, follows the federal statute, saying "no person’s property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation." So at least two questions should be answered by defenders of the stadium project, including Governor Bush: (1) Is the stadium truly a "public use" of sufficient public benefit to justify condemnation of private property for stadium construction? (2) Were the property owners, whose lands were seized by eminent domain, granted due process and just compensation?

For the Ballpark at Arlington project, the city and the ASFDA condemned the land, yet the Rangers ball club, a private corporation, receive all future revenues to be generated from that same land. The Rangers now own development rights over the entire 270-acre complex including an amphitheater, office buildings, shops and restaurants. In addition, the master agreement between the City of Arlington and the Rangers gives the team control over almost everything that occurs on the property. "The Rangers shall collect and retain as their income all concessions, parking signage, sublease revenues, naming allowances, and any and all other revenue produced within the Facilities," says the agreement.

Asked if the stadium was a public use, Mayor Greene replied "There was a public benefit to building the ballpark project. The land needed to support the project had to be acquired for the project. . . It’s not different from any other condemnation project. The project is for the direct benefit of the Rangers and the community. There’s a mutual benefit in this project, and it’s well accepted and well established in law that this project was eligible for that public purpose."

During an interview with the Observer, Schieffer compared the stadium several times to the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. "If we didn’t have that airport, we wouldn’t have an airport that employs 68,000 people," he said, adding that stadiums should be looked at as "infrastructure and as engines that pull other development."

Whether or not the stadium project is a public use may be debated; moreover, several recent studies of the economic impact of sports facilities—including the Arlington stadium—fail to support Schaeffer’s claim that the stadium generates broader local prosperity. But court records and press reports show that the Rangers owners clearly understood the profit-making potential of developing the land around the stadium. Court records show that Craig Stapleton (a cousin of Governor Bush) sent a letter to Schieffer shortly after the stadium deal was announced, saying he was willing to "advise" the team on the "residual real estate" around the stadium. Stapleton went on to say "I think we have quite a play."

On October 27, 1990, Bush was quoted in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram about the Rangers’ real estate plans, acknowledging "the idea of making a land play, absolutely, to plunk the field down in the middle of a big piece of land. That’s kind of always been the strategy." While Bush insisted on April 11 that he was "not aware of the details" in 1990 regarding plans to condemn the Mathes’ property, he clearly did know of the plans to exploit that land—"making a land play"—for commercial purposes that would benefit himself and the owners of the Rangers.

In recent years, the use of eminent domain in Texas has grown more common. It was used to acquire land near the Texas Motor Speedway in Fort Worth, and for a controversial shopping center built in Hurst. The trend has caught the attention of Republican Senator David Sibley of Waco, one of Bush’s closest allies in the Legislature. While the Senator would not comment directly on the deal that allowed Bush and his partners to obtain the land around the Ballpark, Sibley said he is worried about potential abuses of eminent domain. "I will tell you as a butt-kicking conservative Republican, I am very concerned about it, I really am," he said. "It causes me problems."

Tom Schieffer remains unapologetic about the condemnation of the Mathes property, and he’s angry that the family was able to get such a high jury award. "The thing that is quite disturbing about this whole process is that the Mathes family and Glenn Sodd were able to get $11 per square foot for their property," he said. "The highest priced land for the [rest of the] project was $2.67 per foot. It is amazing to me that the legal system could work so poorly." It may sound ironic coming from a representative of the Rangers, but in Schieffer’s opinion, the Mathes family had "managed to manipulate the system."

Texas Observer (http://www.mollyivins.com/showMisc.asp?FileName=970509_f1.htm)

[scott]

• Use the government’s powers of eminent domain to condemn land the Rangers couldn’t or didn’t want to buy on the open market;

Hey, how about that.

[RandomGuy]

No, over a million idiots watering their lawns in San Antonio has made water a scarce issue. So much so that they have come to Gonzales County, leased water rights from a few induviduals, and can pump water from the Carrizo-Wilcox, which doesn't have water restrictions and takes over 20 years for water to reach the lowest part from the surface - unlike the Edwards.



Actually residential use only accounts for 25% of all the water usage in the US.

The rest goes to agriculture.

Source: What I remember from studying water issues in my geography class a few years ago. Gotta love a liberal arts education. ;)

[RandomGuy]

The only way to really fix this is to amend the constitution to protect personal real estate property. Only a strong public need should force someone out... not a commercial venture for profit.

We don't really need to amend the constitution.

This is one thing that I think the states are good for, and one issue that gets people from both sides of the political spectrum hot under the collar.

I think that laws to shield home owners from this sort of thing are being proposed in just about every state legislature and city council in the US at the moment.
:lol

[Extra Stout]

Actually residential use only accounts for 25% of all the water usage in the US.

The rest goes to agriculture.

Source: What I remember from studying water issues in my geography class a few years ago. Gotta love a liberal arts education. ;)What about industrial use?

[Yonivore]

What about industrial use?
Just wait, before RG is through he'll account for 168.75% of all water usage...from memory, of course.

[MannyIsGod]

Just wait, before RG is through he'll account for 168.75% of all water usage...from memory, of course.
Ignoring Scott's point from above are we?

[Yonivore]

I'm opposed to government subsidized sports facilities. Period. I think voters who pass referendums that end up with places like the Alamodome and Arlington Stadium should have their voting rights abolished.

Is that non-dodgy enough for you?

[MannyIsGod]

Excellent, we agree then. Too bad the man you nominated for Mt. Rushmore does not.

[Yonivore]

Can anyone recall how the Texas Rangers got their stadium built while President Bush was part owner?
He wasn't President or even Governor then...but, a businessman who was responsible to partners and employees.

Looks to me like he did what was in the best interest of his business...and, as long as government and voters allow it, what are you going to do?

[Yonivore]

Excellent, we agree then. Too bad the man you nominated for Mt. Rushmore does not.
You don't know that he was the only person involved in that decision and, if I'm not mistaken, the City of Arlington passed a referendum to build the Rangers that stadium...so, it appears you have the voters to blame as well.

And, were condemnations made on the basis of urban blight?

[SWC Bonfire]

RG is probably correct in his percentages - nothing would grow in California without irrigation. National Geographic had a good pictoral map of water usage nationwide and percentages of use.

Very little of the use in south central Texas is agriculture. I would bet the following is true: The Edwards has much more agricultural use than the Carrizo-Wilcox,
and the lion share of Edwards water is used by municipalities.

[scott]

My point wasn't to mention how the Ballpark in Arlington was financed - but rather to rebuke the claims by some that eminent domain is a tool of liberal socialist wackos.

[Yonivore]

My point wasn't to mention how the Ballpark in Arlington was financed - but rather to rebuke the claims by some that eminent domain is a tool of liberal socialist wackos.
I think the whole "economic development" angle is a liberal socialist wacko idea.

[Yonivore]

RG is probably correct in his percentages - nothing would grow in California without irrigation. National Geographic had a good pictoral map of water usage nationwide and percentages of use.

Very little of the use in south central Texas is agriculture. I would bet the following is true: The Edwards has much more agricultural use than the Carrizo-Wilcox,
and the lion share of Edwards water is used by municipalities.
Except that 75 and 25 equal 100 which, as the poster mentioned, leaves nothing for industrial use.

[Winehole23]

the Fort Trumbull tract where the razed homes once stood never did get built on, despite a $78 million incentive package from the state of Connecticut. In 2008, after the nationwide real-estate bubble burst, the construction company, Boston-based Corcoran Jennison, that the NLDC had engaged to develop the site announced that it couldn’t obtain enough financing for the ambitious enterprise and pulled out. In 2009 Pfizer itself left New London, abandoning its new digs only eight years after the building had been completed. In 2010 Pfizer sold the New London facility for a reported $55 million​—​a small fraction of what it had spent to build it​—​to General Dynamics’s Groton-based Electric Boat division, a submarine manufacturer. Few of the 1,400 or so Pfizer employees who worked there had chosen to live in New London, so its contribution to the city’s economic base had always been questionable.http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/kelo-revisited_776021.html?page=2