Saturday, July 02, 2005

School board passes resolution against the TTC

Rosebud-Lott ISD is first school board to pass a resolution against Trans-Texas Corridor

By Curtis Chubb
Staff Writer
The Marlin Democrat
Copyright 2005

Rosebud-Lott ISD Superintendent Donald Schmidt introduced a resolution opposing the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC).

Schmidt stated that he was against the TTC for school-related and personal reasons.

Three reasons were cited: 1) it takes away from the school tax base, 2) school bus routes will be adversely impacted, and 3) it is a major safety hazard when considering how emergency vehicles will cross the TTC.

Schmidt said that he "would like to let them know that as a school district, we are opposed to the TTC."

Trustee Larry Luedke moved that the 'Resolution Opposing the Trans-Texas Corridor" be approved. The motion was approved unanimously.

According to David Stall of CorridorWatch.org, Rosebud-Lott ISD is the first school board to pass a resolution against the TTC.

Stall said that the County Commissioners Courts of 29 counties including Falls and Milam Counties have passed resolutions opposing the construction of the TTC.


Copyright © 2005 The Marlin Democrat: www.marlindemocrat.com

pigicon

Senator Wentworth: “I believe that this is an amendment that Texans will strongly support.”

Legislators vow to fight for property rights

By David Rupkalvis
The Herald-Zeitung
Copyright 2005

AUSTIN — State Rep. Carter Casteel and Sen. Jeff Wentworth responded quickly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled governments can use eminent domain for economic development purposes.

Casteel, R-New Braunfels, signed on as a co-author to a constitutional amendment written by Rep. Frank Corte, R-San Antonio, that would limit eminent domain in the state.

At the same time, Wentworth, R-San Antonio, was one of three authors of legislation filed in the Senate that would prohibit governments from taking property to be used for economic development.

Casteel said her response was in part due to requests from her constituents and in part due to personal experience.

Several years ago, Casteel experienced eminent domain firsthand when riverfront property her family owned was taken for the Canyon Lake Dam.

“It’s painful,” Casteel said.

Her experience and repeated calls from her constituents led Casteel to act.

“People are very concerned about property rights,” she said. “I have joined with Frank Cortes to do a constitutional amendment. If we get this done this year, we can have it on the ballot in November.”

Wentworth joined Sens. Bob Deuell and Jane Nelson to author an amendment in the Senate.

Wentworth said he supports economic development efforts but never at the expense of private property rights.

“I do not believe that Texans’ property rights should be sacrificed on the altar of economic development,” he said.

Casteel said before any formal action can be taken, the governor must include the effort into the special session already under way. If the governor does not include the amendment, or call another special session, the effort would not be able to proceed until the new regular session in 2007.

“While many of us in the Legislature understand the importance of this issue, it is not up to the legislative body to determine what topics are included in this, or any, special session,” Casteel said. “Only the governor can decide what will be included. I encourage you to contact Gov. Perry and ask him to include this important issue in this special session.”

Wentworth also said he would support taking up the amendment now, adding he was confident it would pass the Legislature and a vote by Texas residents.

“I believe that this is an amendment that Texans will strongly support,” Wentworth said. “As a state senator and a fourth-generation Texan, I am very aware that Texans believe strongly in their right to own and use their private property without fear of condemnation of their property solely for the purpose of private economic development.”

The Herald-Zeitung: www.herald-zeitung.com

pigicon

House reacts to Supreme Court decision

Giving government a hard time

Associated Press
Copyright 2005

WASHINGTON - Reacting to a recent Supreme Court decision, lawmakers are moving to make it more difficult for local governments to seize private property that stands in the way of shopping malls and other commercial development.

The House approved by a 231-189 vote a bid by conservative Scott Garrett, R-N.J., to bar federal transportation funds from being used to make improvements on lands seized via eminent domain for private development.

"They’re going to have to find their own money, instead of coming to Washington," Rep. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said after Thursday’s vote.

In a 5-4 ruling last week, the Supreme Court said municipalities have broad power to bulldoze people’s homes and put up shopping malls or other private development to generate tax revenue. The decision drew a scathing dissent from Justice Sandra Day O’Connor as favoring rich corporations.

Legislation in the works also would ban the use of federal funds for any project getting the go-ahead using the Kelo v. City of New London (Conn.) decision.

Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., mentioned community development block grants as one type of money source that would be banned for projects advancing as a result of the Kelo decision. The grant program provides money for everything from lead abatement in old buildings to improving water and sewage facilities.

Sensenbrenner and the committee’s top Democrat, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, are drafting legislation that would prevent Washington from claiming eminent domain for economic development and block any state or local government from getting federal funds for projects.

At least eight states - Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington - already forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, introduced a similar bill on Monday, with a House companion introduced by Rep. Dennis Rehberg, R-Mont. The Supreme Court has overturned other congressional attempts to supersede its decisions.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California says she is opposed to any legislation that would withhold federal dollars "for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court, no matter how opposed I am to that decision."

Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.

The Associated Press: www.ap.org

pigicon

Real Protection for Property Owners?

Protection for property owners

By The Huntsville Item
Copyright 2005

Rep. Lois W. Kolkhorst (R-Brenham) joined fellow lawmaker Rep. Frank Corte (R-San Antonio) on Thursday in filing House Joint Resolution 19, which is a proposed amendment to the State Constitution intended to limit a governmental entity's power of eminent domain.

The issue must be added to the current special session by Gov. Rick Perry, and then be passed by the House and Senate before being placed on a statewide ballot.

Kolkhorst also signed a letter urging Perry to add the issue to the current special session's agenda. Unlike a regular session, the agenda for a special session is left up to the sole discretion of the governor.

If approved by Texas voters, the amendment would prevent local governments from using the power of eminent domain to condemn private property for economic development projects. The measure is in response to last week's Supreme Court ruling.

"Like many others, I was personally shocked at the Supreme Court decision," Kolkhorst said. "The power of eminent domain was never intended to be used for purely financial gain or increased property values. Land ownership is a sacred thing, especially in Texas. This ruling overturned 800 years of common law and common sense. It reminds me of before the Magna Carta, when the local lords decided what you could and could not do with the King's property and land."

The Supreme Court last week ruled in the case Kelo v. The City of New London, Conn., allowing the city to condemn a neighborhood of private homes in order to make way for a planned research facility and upscale residences and retail stores. The decision affirms that local governments can force property owners to sell to make way for private economic development when government officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted, and the new project's success is not guaranteed.

Already, based on the court ruling, it is reported that officials in the beachfront town of Freeport, south of Houston, plans to move aggressively to condemn property owned by two seafood companies to clear the way for an $8 million private marina.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court left the issue up to individual states to address the issue, which has prompted an abundance of negative reactions and concerns.

"We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in Thursday's decision in Kelo v. City of New London.

State and federal governments already have eminent domain powers, and political subdivisions, such as city or county governments, still could exercise their eminent domain powers so long as economic development was not the primary reason.

"This resolution is a good start, but I hope public support will push it even further in terms of clarification," Kolkhorst said. "We need to ensure that the federal government, the state, or any local governmental entity can't still simply label something an economic development project and then take someone's land. If it's wrong for a city or county to do this, we should be clear that it's also wrong for state or federal government entities as well."

In February, Kolkhorst filed similar legislation in order to curtail the authority of the planned Trans-Texas Corridor. That bill, HB 1579, would have prohibited land from being taken out of the private sector and then developed and sold to a single franchising partner with TxDOT along the roadway. The bill gained statewide attention, and the bipartisan support of many legislators, but ultimately did not pass during regular session.

"People should own property without living in fear that the government can take it and turn it over to private developers in the name of higher property values," Kolkhorst said. "Hopefully, the resolution will slam the door on this land-grabbing concept in Texas."


Copyright © 2005 The Huntsville Item

The Huntsville Item: www.itemonline.com

pigicon

"Those who naively trust local governments to make wise decisions clearly haven't been paying attention."

COMMENTARY: 'Public good' is in eye of beholder when cash flows

Molly Ivins

The Desert Dispatch
Copyright 2005

As one who cares a whale of a lot more about personal rights than property rights, let me leap right into the fray over a Supreme Court decision on the side of the property rights advocates, many of whom I normally consider nutballs. But at least they're more in touch with reality than a majority of the Supreme Court.

The justice who nailed this one was Sandra Day O'Connor, bless her. She wrote in dissent: "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."

The court ruled 5-4 that local governments may use the power of eminent domain to confiscate private homes and turn them over to private developers, who will make more profitable use of them, tax-wise. The case came out of New London, Conn., a city that has lost tens of thousands of jobs and has an unemployment rate twice that of the rest of the state.

In the late 1990s, the Pfizer drug company decided to build a $300 million research campus next-door to 32 acres the city had acquired after the Navy closed a facility there. The state pledged $7 million to open the waterfront to the public, fill in the flood plain and clean up the area, which has environmental hazards. The city also came up with a redevelopment plan that includes marinas, parks, private offices, condos and a hotel. But seven of the 90 landowners in the area refused to sell.

The court essentially extended the use of eminent domain -- the right by which the government can seize private property to use for public purposes in exchange for fair market value -- to include for-profit development.

Well, sure, that sounds just dandy -- parks, marina, riverfront walk -- all a lot nicer than some blighted area. "Public purposes" usually means roads, schools, and bridges. But the five justices in the majority on this decision clearly know little to nothing about local government.

The majority noted that "economic development" has long been considered a public good. "Jobs, jobs, jobs," is the eternal cry of the economic development lobby, which always stands to profit from whatever abomination is about to be foisted on the public. I'm not arguing that bigger is better or worse, I'm arguing that local governments are likely to seize on any chance to increase their tax base. We've got places in Texas that beg for prisons, chemical complexes, even nuclear waste dumps.

What it doesn't mean is a better place to live, which I gather is what the Supreme Court majority had in mind with this decision. Those who naively trust local governments to make wise decisions clearly haven't been paying attention. The main difference between the feds and the locals is that it costs more to buy the feds. And I don't like cynics.

Many, many "economic development" decisions are made after an all-expenses-paid jaunt for local officials to the home location of a corporation, or after a pleasant discussion over lunch after a round of golf at a country club. Too cynical for you?

Look, a Wal-Mart brings in more tax dollars than 10 mom-and-pop stores. A chemical plants brings in more than the local shrimpers, especially after it kills off all the shrimp.

People have the most remarkable ability to convince themselves that what they are doing is for the greater good if they are also making a great deal of money out of it. Or, as Upton Sinclair put it, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

MOLLY IVINS

Is a nationally syndicated political columnist who remains cheerful despite Texas politics. She emphasizes the more hilarious aspects of both state and national government, and consequently never has to write fiction.


© 2005 Desert Dispatch www.desertdispatch.com

pigicon

Friday, July 01, 2005

TxDOT pushes 121 toll road plan

TxDOT road show touts 121 toll plans

Frisco Enterprise
By Mike Raye, Staff Writer
Copyright 2005

Engineers and representatives from the Texas Department of Transportation's Dallas District (TxDOT) made their fifth stop on a month-long tour of Collin County cities in Frisco Thursday night, to present results of the recently completed State Highway 121 feasibility study.

The study, commissioned by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), came to three basic conclusions:

* S.H. 121 in Collin County is at a crossroads.

* There is not enough money to build it.

* They have to find a way to get more money.

According to NCTCOG and TxDOT, building a six-lane road (with six lanes of service roads alongside) from the Dallas North Tollway in Frisco to U.S. Highway 75 (Central Expressway) in McKinney will cost $107.46 million. Building an interchange at S.H. 121 and the Tollway will cost another $105.3 million, and an interchange at S.H. 121 and Central $112.7 million, for a total of $325.46 million.

The problem is, there is only $30 million in TxDOT's piggybank to pay for the highway, coming from revenue raised from the state tax on gasoline. There is the possibility of Uncle Sam kicking in another $16 million from federal House Transportation Bill funds. That is enough to build the "main lanes" from the Tollway to Hillcrest Road, but that's all. Money to build the rest has to come from tolling the road, in order for the construction to be completed by the target date of 2010, TxDOT argues.

Plans for collecting tolls electronically by Toll Tags - much less the concept of tolls themselves - have been met with great resistance in Frisco, from the mayor to John Q. Public. TxDOT said adding electronic tollbooths along the 11.2-mile route would cost an additional $2 million. After the highway is finished in 2010, it will cost $4.75 million per year to operate and maintain, TxDOT said.

Options were presented to toll the entire 11.2 miles, from the Tollway to Central, or only from Hillcrest Road to Central, a distance of 9 miles. Based on a toll of 15 cents per mile, it would cost $1.70 each way on a Tollway-to-Central toll road, or $1.35 if only Hillcrest-to-Central was a pay-to-drive route.

Prosperity is behind the need for the construction, and a by-product of current and projected growth of the region over the next 25 years, the feasibility study showed. According to demographic data, Collin County's population will grow by an astonishing 90-percent from 2004 to 2030, rising from 615,200 residents to almost 1.2 million in 2030. Frisco will undergo a 243-percent population boom, from 66,400 in 2004 to 227,900 in 2030. McKinney is expected to grow by 143 percent and Allen by 59 percent in the same period. Plano, already near build-out, will grow by another 6 percent, the study predicts.

Growing populations put more vehicles on the road, ergo the need for greater highway capacity - an insight held by regional planners for decades.

S.H. 121's importance as a regional artery in Denton and Collin Counties - and the prospect of population outgrowing the road - have been known since 1986, the feasibility study reported. The Regional Transportation Council's "Mobility 2000" report identified S.H. 121 as a vital route, and as early as 1989 TxDOT had blueprints for a six main lane and six access lane highway. The prospect of building S.H. 121 as a toll road was first broached in October 2004.


©Star Community Newspapers 2005: www.zwire.com

pigicon

Texas Transportation Commission and Cintra-Zachry leave Alamo Regional Mobility Authority in the dark

S.A. left out of toll road decision

7/01/2005

Patrick Driscoll, Staff Writer
San Antonio Express-News Copyright 2005

AUSTIN — Surprised and concerned leaders from San Antonio could only stand on the sidelines Thursday as state officials agreed to pursue a private bid to build and operate toll roads in Bexar County.

But don't worry, said members of the Texas Transportation Commission, who have promised to let San Antonio officials have input on decisions.

Thursday's action just means the state will seek other proposals to start a competitive process that could last a year. There's plenty of time for San Antonio officials to weigh in.

"In the end, if the project doesn't make sense to them (San Antonio) then we're not going to go forward," said commission Chairman Ric Williamson.

Nevertheless, San Antonio officials were left out of Thursday's decision, said Bill Thornton, chairman of the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority. He said he wasn't even notified that it would be on the agenda.

"So I'm a little uneasy to know where my place is at the table," he told commissioners.

In April, the Spanish company Cintra and its San Antonio partner Zachry American Infrastructure offered to take over the first 47 miles of toll roads in San Antonio. The lanes would be added to the northern half of Loop 1604 and on U.S. 281 from Loop 1604 to Comal County.

Private money would fund the $1.3 billion construction job, speeding up work and freeing up $630 million in tax subsidies. But the companies would collect toll fees of 15 cents or more a mile for up to 50 years, money that San Antonio officials hoped to reinvest in other toll projects.

Texas Department of Transportation officials told commissioners Thursday that the Cintra-Zachry proposal has merit.

San Antonio officials said they have no idea whether it does.

Confidential agreements, to protect trade secrets, must be worked out and signed before San Antonio officials can even look at the Cintra-Zachry plan. They'll also need expert help to dissect details, and the Regional Mobility Authority likely will ask the state for up to $20 million to hire staff and consultants.

San Antonio and state officials are also drafting an agreement on how to work together and decide how toll roads will be built and operated. San Antonio leaders want to make the final decisions.

"Our interest is in local control and in approval or disapproval," Thornton said.

Williamson said he didn't have a problem with that, but Richard Monroe, general counsel to the state transportation department, said he did. The state can't just turn over its legal responsibilities to a local entity, Monroe advised.

"That's turning the state constitution on its head," he told commissioners.

In other action Thursday, the Transportation Commission authorized staff to negotiate providing $120 million in funds to start work several years sooner on widening sections of Culebra, Blanco and Bandera roads.

The money will match $56.5 million to be collected from a new San Antonio sales tax that voters approved in November. A fourth of the quarter-cent-per-dollar tax is for state highways while another fourth will be spent on city streets and half will go to bus service.

The matching state funds will fulfill a promise made during the sales tax campaign.

"We've quadrupled their (tax) money, really," said Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff, who led efforts to pass the tax. "So we're keeping our word and rocking along."

pdriscoll@express-news.net

San Antonio Express-News: www.mysanantonio.com

pigicon

Thursday, June 30, 2005

"Residents fear private land grab"

Corridor has people worried

June 30, 2005

By Margaret Garry
Taylor Daily Press
Copyright 2005

Residents fear private land grab, divided community

Residents in eastern Williamson County expressed their concerns that the Trans-Texas Corridor could divide communities and swallow up private land that has been in families for generations during a public meeting Monday night in Coupland.

More than 125 people attended the meeting on transportation hosted by the Coupland Civic Organization (CCO). County Commissioner Frankie Limmer and Wendy Reilly and Jason Nelson, chief of staff and legislative aide to State Rep. Mike Krusee, answered questions about the proposed routes of the Trans-Texas Corridor road and rail projects that could affect the area.

In addition to active members of the CCO, residents of Taylor, Hutto, Bartlett, Holland and Rogers attended the meeting, including a group representing the Blacklands Coalition, let by Chairman Ralph Snyder.

Residents said they are concerned a new road or rail line will divide the Coupland community, making it difficult for neighbors to interact with one another and causing a major impediment to the community's ability to function. They also expressed concern about the loss of large amounts of private land, some of which has been in families for generations.

Krusee serves as representative to District 52, which includes Taylor, Hutto, Coupland, Round Rock and much of rural eastern Williamson County. He is also chairman of the House Transportation Committee and has authored several bills that helped facilitate the construction of new roads and rail lines through the area.

While his staff members heard a wide range of questions related to transportation and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), there were many they were unable to answer.

Reilly stressed that though Krusee has no say in the final position of any rail or roadway, constituents should contact his office with concerns that can later be passed to TxDOT as decisions are made. Final decisions on construction projects of this nature are the responsibility of the Texas Transportation Commission, she said. Commissioners are appointed by the governor.

She also said that the portion of the corridor designated as a road through Williamson County will be SH 130, which runs from Georgetown to Seguin by way of Hutto, Pflugerville and Manor.

The proposed rail line would be transplanted from Austin, where it currently runs adjacent to Mopac expressway. A movement is underway to ask voters in the City of Austin to close that line to commercial freight in order to open it to the city's new light rail system, she said.

Krusee's staff speculated that a new line would probably run somewhere between the Mopac line and the rail line that currently runs through Coupland and Taylor, though they could provide no concrete information about where the rail line would go or what a specific time line for construction would be.

Coupland residents said they would continue to learn about the process, ask questions and take action to help keep Eastern Williamson County intact.

"This isn't just affecting Coupland," said one visitor from the Blacklands Coalition. "It affects the entire state."

The CCO meets at 7 p.m. the last Monday of each month in the Education Building of St. Peter's Church of Coupland.

A committee has been formed to oppose the construction of roads and rail that would be detrimental to the area.

Those interested in receiving updates about the proposed rail line can contact Susan Garry at susan_garry@hotmail.com to be placed on the CCO's rail issues e-mail list.

Taylor Daily Press: www.taylordailypress.net

pigicon

Eminent Domain-Imminent Blowback

Bills May Blunt Eminent Domain

By JESSE J. HOLLAND
The Associated Press
June 30, 2005,

WASHINGTON -- Lawmakers are trying to blunt last week's Supreme Court decision that says local governments can seize people's homes to make way for shopping malls and other private development.House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Thursday the high court had made "a horrible decision" in the New London, Conn. case and he hoped it would cause a backlash.

"The only silver lining to this decision is the possibility that this time the court has finally gone too far and that the American people are ready to reassert their constitutional authority," said DeLay, R-Texas, a critic of recent court decisions.In a 5-4 ruling last week, the Supreme Court said municipalities have broad power to bulldoze people's homes and put up shopping malls or other private development to generate tax revenue.

The decision drew a scathing dissent from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as favoring rich corporations. DeLay agreed."Someone could knock on your door, and tell you that the city council has voted to give your house to someone else because they have nicer plans for the property," DeLay said.Legislation in the works would ban the use of federal funds for any project getting the go-ahead using the Kelo v. City of New London decision."They're going to have to find their own money, instead of coming to Washington," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., mentioned community development block grants as one type of money source that would be banned for projects advancing as a result of the Kelo decision.

The grant program provides money to more than 1,000 municipalities for everything from lead abatement in old buildings to improving water and sewage facilities.Sensenbrenner and the committee's top Democrat, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, are planning a bill that would prevent Washington from claiming eminent domain for economic development and block any state or local government from getting federal funds for projectsSen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, introduced a similar bill on Monday.

The Supreme Court has overturned other congressional attempts to supersede its decisions."It is clearly within the power of Congress to limit the use of federal funds," Cornyn said. Susette Kelo, the lead plaintiff in the case, whose apricot-colored riverfront house is set to be razed, said she's glad politicians in Washington are railing against the decision."Until the Supreme Court decision, we had nobody backing us," she said. "Now it seems like 99 percent of the country is behind us."House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California says she is opposed to any legislation that would withhold federal dollars "for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court, no matter how opposed I am to that decision."

At least eight states -- Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington -- already forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.There were more than 10,000 instances of private property being threatened with condemnation or actually condemned by government for private use between 1998-2002, according to the Institute for Justice.

Copyright © 2005, The Associated Press

The Associated Press: www.ap.org

pigicon

The idea of private highways has incited grassroots opposition in some states.

US Congress seen paving way for private toll roads .

By Daniel Sorid

SAN FRANCISCO
Reuters Copyright 2005

The next road you travel -- and pay a toll to use -- could be privately owned.

Looking for ways to finance highway projects without hitting the public trough, the U.S. Congress appears set to pass a proposal to encourage private ownership of new toll roads.

The provision, part of the highway spending bill now being hammered out by a Senate and House conference committee, would allow private companies to raise up to $15 billion for highway projects with bonds that are exempt from federal income taxes.

While the proposal has broad support in Washington and the business community, the idea of private highways has incited grassroots opposition in some states, with some saying the government -- not a profit-seeking company -- is the proper owner of the public's roads.

Toll road owners such as Spain's Cintra and Australia's Macquarie Infrastructure Group
stand to benefit from the move to private infrastructure bonds, since their tax-exempt status would keep interest rates and funding costs low.

The move would also bring lucrative fees to Wall Street banks and others for underwriting and trading tax-exempt debt.

"The time has come for this," Sen. Jim Talent, a Missouri Republican who co-sponsored the proposal, said in a telephone interview. "I think we have an excellent chance of the $15 billion bond issue coming out of conference."

MAJOR SHIFT

While highway spending has traditionally been the government's responsibility, many states faced with tight budgets have given corporations the right to build, operate and maintain roads.

States have the right to regulate toll rates or limit profits, but generally give operators wide latitude to run the roads as they see fit, which concerns some commuters.

Texas, California and Virginia are among the states at the forefront of the movement, one of the most significant changes to the interstate highway network since its inception in the 1950s.

Companies already own projects such as the Chicago Skyway Bridge and the 407 Express that rings Toronto, and interest in privatizing more of the U.S. highway infrastructure is increasing. One bottleneck, however, has been financing.

Jose Lopez De Fuentes, director of Cintra's U.S. and Latin American operation, said private road builders currently face complex regulations governing the issuance of tax-exempt bonds.

The provision expected to emerge from Congress would help Cintra raise funds to finance such projects as a proposed $7 billion investment in the Texas highway system, he said.

Cintra's proposal, which includes a new link on the congested Dallas-San Antonio route, has triggered some opposition, but the state transportation department is ecstatic.

"That's a pretty good deal any way you slice it," said Gaby Garcia, a spokeswoman with the Texas department. "They'll cover the table with $7 billion and say, 'We'll raise that money on our own without any help from you.'"

TAPPING THE TAX ROLLS

But Ellen Dannin, a law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit who has written on privatization, said private companies are not necessarily more efficient at running roads, and their tolls amount to a regressive tax on highway building.

A better solution to public underfunding of the road system may be to roll back tax cuts that are squeezing the federal budget, Dannin said.

"One of the things to ask yourself is, why doesn't the government have the money to spend on the infrastructure that we need?" she said.

And while the private-activity bonds will not require any outlay of public funds, the government would pay for the plan in the form of reduced tax rolls, estimated at $500 million over six years.

In a highway bill that would cost $275 billion or more in that time, $500 million is a small price to pay for a novel financing mechanism that could pay for dozens of projects, said Karen Hedlund, an Arlington, Virginia-based partner at Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott LLP, which advises state governments on transportation issues.

"Federal funding through gas taxes and state and local taxes are no longer sufficient to maintain our highway assets and to build the additional assets we need to get ourselves out of congestion," Hedlund said.

Private road builders and public-private partnerships can pay out less interest on tax-exempt bonds, reducing the financing costs of projects by 20 percent, she said.

Ed Mortimer, director of transportation infrastructure at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said an additional $15 billion in financing could fund 20 or 30 highway projects.

The proposal could provide a special boost to projects to expand connections between ports or industrial sites and the highways. Such roads are less popular -- but no less important -- than routes used by commuters.

"Sometimes," Mortimer said, "those projects are the hardest ones to get funded."


© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.

Reuters: www. today.reuters.com

pigicon

Members try to learn of Corridor's location and financing

Corridor advisory committee briefed on route

Thursday, June 30, 2005

By Matt Joyce, staff writer
Waco Tribune-Herald Copyright 2005

AUSTIN – Members of a citizens advisory committee sought Wednesday to understand the two major tentacles of the state's evolving plans for the Trans-Texas Corridor: its location and financing.

In the committee's second meeting, Texas Department of Transportation officials briefed members on the state's selection of a corridor route and on the formation of a development agreement with private financiers and builders Cintra-Zachry.

"I think the committee is a good group that knows we need to do something about transportation, but is very skeptical of both (Cintra-Zachry) and the transportation department staff. I think that's the way we're coming at it," said Roy Walthall of Waco, the only McLennan County resident selected for the citizens committee.

The Texas Transportation Commission formed the 22-member committee in April in response to complaints that the state was pushing forward on its corridor plan without enough public participation.

Gov. Rick Perry proposed the corridor project in 2002 as a way to meet the state's present and future infrastructure needs. His plan calls for a 4,000-mile tolled transportation network criss-crossing the state at a total construction cost as high as $184 billion.

The state plans for the corridor to be 1,200 feet wide with space for passenger vehicle traffic, truck traffic, railways and a 200-foot utility zone. But officials have said the various components would be built only as the state's transportation needs merit.

The citizens committee, which elected Bell County Commissioner Tim Brown as chairman, will advise the transportation commission and does not have decision-making authority.

On Wednesday, Doug Booher, environmental manager for the Texas Turnpike Authority Division, outlined the department's progress on setting the alignment for a section of the corridor known as TTC 35. The section is the state's top corridor priority and would run parallel to Interstate 35 from Oklahoma to Mexico with a possible route through McLennan County.

Highway officials have said construction of an initial section of the corridor, a four-lane divided highway, could begin by 2010.

Through a federally mandated environmental study, the department's current 50-mile-wide study area will be narrowed to 10 miles by this fall. The department will then hold public hearings on its preferred corridor to gather public feedback that could influence the alignment, he said.

Once a 10-mile-wide study area is identified, the actual construction of the corridor – which could be up to nearly a quarter-mile wide – would take place as the state's transportation needs merit new construction, he said.

The selection of the corridor alignment within the 10-mile area would require another complete environmental study to identify a specific route.

"This does not authorize any construction at all," Booher said. "It simply says that when a transportation need is identified, this (10-mile-wide) corridor will be our starting point for those detailed studies."

State officials also tried to bring committee members up to speed on the state's partnership with a private firm, Cintra-Zachry. The development group has agreed to invest $6 billion into building the first segment of the corridor, from Dallas to San Antonio, in exchange for the state allowing Cintra-Zachry to operate the corridor as a tollway for 50 years.

The state agreed in March to pay $3.5 million to Cintra-Zachry to flesh out comprehensive plans for financing and building various elements of the corridor. Finalizing those plans, which are known as the comprehensive development agreement, will take until October 2006, said Dieter Billek, project manager for the transportation department's turnpike authority.

State officials stressed that the process of forming a comprehensive development agreement is separate from the environmental study to identify a route. Cintra-Zachry will not be allowed to deviate from the state's selected route, they said.

Amadeo Saenz Jr., the transportation department's executive director of engineering operations, said the state will have its own experts studying the cost of building certain segments. The agreement would allow either the state or Cintra-Zachry to opt out if the two parties don't come to terms on the price of building a certain segment of the corridor, he said.
mjoyce@wacotrib.com

Waco Tribune-Herald: www.wacotrib.com

pigicon

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

"Resolution may be little more than symbolic."

Measure seeks to limit power to take property

Some say the effort is strictly symbolic on lawmakers' part

June 29, 2005
By TIM EATON Austin Bureau
Scripps Howard News Service Copyright 2005

AUSTIN - Some lawmakers hope Gov. Rick Perry will expand the special session agenda so they can pass legislation to protect property owners in Texas.

Rep. Scott Campbell, R-San Angelo, and Rep. Frank Corte, R-San Antonio, have filed legislation that would amend the state Constitution to prohibit local governments from taking private property for economic development reasons.

House Joint Resolution 19 is a response to the recent 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court ruling authorizing local governments to seize homes and businesses for economic development purposes.

Because it is a constitutional amendment, two-thirds of both legislative chambers and a majority of Texas voters would have to approve it.

''Protecting the private property rights of Texans is the most important role I can play in representing my constituents," Campbell said. "This outrageous decision by the Supreme Court could open doors that would cause our founding fathers to turn over in their graves."

But the resolution may be little more than symbolic.

Political subdivisions, such as city or county governments, still could exercise their eminent domain powers so long as economic development was not the primary reason, said Lynn Blais, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.

A local government could simply label economic development as the secondary purpose, Blais said.

Plus, she added, state and federal governments already have eminent domain powers.

"That language makes it unlikely to actually effectively change behavior," Blais said. "To me, it doesn't seem like it is going to have much effect."

Corte said he would be open to firming up the language so long as it did not stifle existing economic development programs.

The issue could be moot this special session, anyway.

Lawmakers won't be able to pass the property-rights legislation unless Perry expands the special session agenda. The governor called lawmakers into a 30-day special session on June 21 to address school funding and property tax cuts. He has said he may expand the topics if lawmakers complete the business at hand before the session ends.

Corte said the governor's office was non-committal about expanding the agenda but promised to look into it.

Campbell said recent incidents in Texas where governments have tried to take over private property exemplify the need for lawmakers to pass the joint resolution.

''This sort of thing should not be left in the hands of a few Supreme Court judges," Campbell said.

If the state-level effort flops, some hope remains for property owners upset with the Supreme Court's ruling.

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, RTexas, filed legislation in Washington that would prohibit transfers of private property if federal funds were used - and if the transfer was for economic development.

"The power of eminent domain should not be used simply to further private economic development," Cornyn said.

Contact Tim Eatonat (512) 334-6642or eatont@scripps.com

Scripps Howard News Service www.shns.com

pigicon

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Proposed Texas constitutional amendment still leaves "wriggle room" for private developers.

Eminent domain targeted

Ruling spurs Texas, others to try to boost property rights

June 28, 2005

By JESSICA LEEDER
The Dallas Morning News copyright 2005

Lawmakers in Austin and across the country are moving to rein in eminent domain authority after last week's Supreme Court decision that broadened government's authority to seize property for economic development.

Republican lawmakers in the Texas House and Senate introduced companion versions of a constitutional amendment that would prohibit eminent domain seizures purely for economic development.

In Washington, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, offered federal legislation that also would limit eminent domain. And officials say at least four other states are considering new restrictions.

"We need to restore the power of eminent domain to public use and not private use," Mr. Cornyn said.

Last week, a divided Supreme Court ruled on a case involving a development in New London, Conn., granting local governments broad power to seize property for the purpose of generating tax revenue.

However, the court also went out of its way to note that its decision doesn't preclude state governments from banning or restricting eminent domain – the power of the state to seize private property without the owner's consent.

Even so, the ruling caused widespread fear that the table had been tilted too much toward developers who, like the Dallas Cowboys now acquiring land in Arlington, seek government's help in obtaining prime real estate for their projects.

That fear might result in a national movement to limit powers of eminent domain.

Larry Morandi, a land use expert at the National Conference of State Legislatures, said he has received queries from legislative staffers in four states other than Texas looking to restrict use of eminent domain: Idaho, Oklahoma, New Jersey and Virginia. On Monday, Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt announced the creation of a special task force to study eminent domain laws.

Limits or ban

Earlier this year, likely in anticipation of the court decision, lawmakers in Utah and Nevada passed laws limiting the use of eminent domain, Mr. Morandi said. In 2004, lawmakers in about a dozen states attempted either to do the same or to ban eminent domain altogether. Only Colorado was successful. In Georgia, an attempt to ban the practice failed.

Mr. Morandi predicts additional attempts when legislatures reconvene across the country in 2006.

Still, critics of the proposed amendments warn that they may not sufficiently protect homeowners.

The memory remains vivid for Jeff Molenburg: sitting helpless and enraged on the curb while a bulldozer razes the home where he raised his family for 18 years. He's never watched the videotape he made to document the most frustrating event of his life. He doesn't have to. "You still dream about it years later," Mr. Molenburg said.

Nearly a decade ago, he and 125 homeowners in the Richland Park East subdivision in Hurst were forced to rebuild their lives after their homes were seized to make room for North East Mall's expansion. Even though most residents were paid fair market value for their properties, Mr. Molenburg said, he's still stewing over the process, which felt unjust.

Some Arlington homeowners are feeling the same way about the Cowboys' new stadium.

Arlington has bought about a dozen properties needed for the 75,000-seat stadium, and the City Council was expected to approve the purchase of 10 more Tuesday night.

But officials also have identified 51 properties that they are willing to take by eminent domain.

'Wiggle room'

Dana Berliner, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice and one of the lawyers who represented homeowners in the Supreme Court case, said the language in the proposed Texas constitutional amendment leaves "wiggle room" and may not stop governments from invoking eminent domain for economic development.

"Texas certainly has been a place where there has been some significant abuses of power," Ms. Berliner said, citing the Hurst case, which she says was one of the worse condemnation cases she's ever seen. "It's a place that needs more protection than it's got right now."

While the issue is not on the legislative agenda for the special session in Austin, a spokeswoman for Republican Gov. Rick Perry said that he is concerned about personal property in Texas and willing to examine the issue.

Rep. Frank Corte Jr., R-San Antonio, introduced the eminent domain measure on Monday. He said such powers should be used only for projects such as water lines, roads, electricity development and similar public works.

It's "totally wrong" to take someone's home from them in order to turn over the land to another private owner for redevelopment, he said.

"I think that goes against what our founding fathers fought for in defense of their homes," he said. "I think it goes against what Sam Houston and Davy Crockett fought for in Texas."

Staff writers Todd Gillman in Washington, Karen Brooks in Austin and Jeff Mosier in Arlington contributed to this report.

E-mail jleeder@dallasnews.com

Dallas Morning News: www.dallasnews.com

pigicon

Senator Cornyn: "The power of eminent domain should not be used simply to further private economic development."

Outrage Lingers Over Property Rights Ruling

By Susan Jones, Senior Editor
CNSNews.com
Copyright 2005


(CNSNews.com) - Although the Supreme Court's Ten Commandments ruling dominated Monday's headlines, a property rights ruling handed down last week still has many Americans shaking their heads -- including some lawmakers, who plan to do something about it.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) has introduced a bill, the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005, in response to last week's 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London .

The Supreme Court ruled that the government may seize the home, small business or other private property of one citizen and transfer it to another private citizen -- if the transfer would boost the community's economic development and its tax base.

The Cornyn legislation, introduced Monday, would prohibit transfers of private property without the owner's consent if federal funds were used; and if the transfer was for purposes of economic development rather than public use.

"It is appropriate for Congress to take action...to restore the vital protections of the Fifth Amendment and to protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against unreasonable government use of the power of eminent domain," Cornyn said.

"This legislation would declare Congress's view that the power of eminent domain should be exercised only for 'public use,' as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment," Cornyn said. "Most importantly, the power of eminent domain should not be used simply to further private economic development."

Cornyn's legislation would clarify that 'public use' shall not be construed to include economic development.

In remarks on the Senate floor Monday, Cornyn said the protection of homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against government seizure is "a fundamental principle and core commitment of our nation's Founders."

He noted that the Fifth Amendment specifically provides that "private property" shall not "be taken for public use without just compensation." The Fifth Amendment, he emphasized, permits government to seize private property only "for public use."

Cornyn called the Supreme Court's June 23, 2005, ruling in Kelo v. City of New London an "alarming decision" that should prompt lawmakers to take action.

"The power of eminent domain should not be used simply to further private economic development," Cornyn said.

"In the aftermath of Kelo , we must take all necessary action to restore and strengthen the protections of the Fifth Amendment. I ask my colleagues to lend their support to this effort, by supporting the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005."

Cornyn also said the Supreme Court's Kelo decision partly vindicates those who supported the nomination of Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

"That nomination attracted substantial controversy in some quarters, Cornyn said, "because of Justice Brown's personal passion for the protection of private property rights. The Kelo decision announced last Thursday demonstrates that her concerns about excessive government interference with property rights is well-founded and well within the mainstream of American jurisprudence."

Sen. Cornyn currently chairs the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship, and in the last Congress he was chairman of the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights subcommittee. A former Texas Supreme Court justice, Texas attorney general, and Bexar County District judge, Cornyn is the only former judge on the Judiciary Committee.

CNSNews.com : www.cnsnews.com

pigicon

"My campaign is not the joke. It's the Texas Legislature that's a joke."

Kinky sees Legislature as the joke

Candidate speaks at local music store

June 28, 2005

By Jaime Powell
Corpus Christi Caller-Times Copyright 2005

Kinky Friedman took time out from signing copies of his latest book at Surf Club Records on Monday to make a case for why he should be elected governor. Wearing a black, fringed leather vest, cowboy hat and Wranglers, he looked anything but a politician as he discussed what was wrong with Texas politics.

"My campaign is not the joke," he said, his trademark cigar hanging from his lips. "It's the Texas Legislature that's a joke. I think it's an easy job, and it's one that's not being done the way it should be."

Friedman, a humorist, performer, mystery writer and Texas Monthly columnist, chatted with the more than 60 people who filed through the Water Street store while he signed copies of his new book, "Texas Hold 'Em."

"We love this guy," said Corpus Christi resident Earlene Caldwell. "He's the official spokesman for Texas. He speaks plain English and makes perfect sense."

In the evening, he raised funds for his gubernatorial race at Nuevo Cafe, telling supporters he wants to revamp education in Texas, starting with no more teaching to standardized tests.

To pay for it, he wants to legalize casino gambling in an initiative he is calling "slots for tots."

He also wants to re-examine the death penalty and appoint people such as teachers and police officers to cabinet positions, he said. Other initiatives he has advocated in his gubernatorial bid as an independent include abolishing political correctness and outlawing the de-clawing of cats.

Friedman, 60, says he is not a bureaucrat or a politician, but a writer of fiction who speaks the truth.

It will be an uphill battle for Friedman to get on the ballot because Texas election laws make it nearly impossible for a candidate not tied to a political party to get there, he said.

He will need signatures from 50,000 registered voters to get on the ballot, none of whom plans to vote in either local or state primary elections during the upcoming election cycle.

"The current system is the way career politicians in Texas have kept a stranglehold on the electorate," he said.

If Friedman gets on the ballot, he will face the winner of what is expected to be a fight between Republican Gov. Rick Perry and State Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, who has announced she will run in the Republican primary.

Contact Jaime Powell at 886-3716or powellj@caller.com

Corpus Christi Caller-Times
www.caller.com


pigicon

Cintra-Zachry Lawsuit: "An effort to conceal the terms of a contract that the taxpaying public will have to live with for 50 years."

Contractor sues to keep Trans-Texas details hidden

June 27, 2005

By RAD SALLEE
Houston Chronicle
Copyright 2005

The controversial Trans-Texas Corridor project continues to travel a hard road.

On Friday Cintra Zachry, the only developer under contract with the state for a leg of the project, asked a court in Austin to block release of its development and financing plans, which Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has said are public record.

The Houston Chronicle sought Abbott's opinion after the Texas Department of Transportation refused to reveal its plans for the project, called TTC-35.

It includes a $7.2 billion toll road from Dallas to San Antonio that could eventually reach from Oklahoma to Mexico.

Rail tracks and pipelines could come later.

Under a March 31 agreement with TxDOT, Cintra Zachry has the inside track to build the facilities and operate them for the state for the next 50 years. When the agreement was signed, its contents were made public except for the nuts and bolts contained in the conceptual plans.

The lawsuit, filed by the company and TxDOT against Abbott, contends that these plans "represent the core of Cintra Zachry's proprietary information" and that the company would be harmed by their release because TxDOT may still choose another developer who comes up with a better idea.

Abbott's opinion had rejected similar arguments. Attorney Joe Larsen, who represents the Chronicle on open records matters, called the lawsuit "a waste of taxpayer money" and "simply a further effort to conceal the terms of a contract that the Texas taxpaying public will have to live with for the next 50 years."

Cintra Zachry also took heat last week for inquiring about a low-interest loan of $320 million from the Federal Highway Administration.

The corridor idea was sold to the public as costing nothing to taxpayers.

Although a loan is very different from a taxpayer-funded grant, this type of loan carries interest rates well below market levels.

Meanwhile, the Texas Legislature may have helped project backers over one early hurdle — opposition from the Texas Farm Bureau to having rural land divided by the broad corridors.

A transportation bill from this year's regular session says the state must compensate owners for loss of value when access to part of their property is reduced by the corridor.

The bill also bars withdrawing underground water from the corridor and taking it off-site.

Addressing another issue that caused anxiety for officials and business people along the planned route, the bill limits development on the corridor to gas stations and convenience stores.

traffic@chron.com 713-362-6832

© 2005 Houston Chronicle: www.chron.com

pigicon

Monday, June 27, 2005

Cintra/Zachry asks FHA for a $320 million loan.

Loan may fund part of SH 130

Contractor seeks government help

June 27, 2005
By Kurt Johnson
Taylor Daily Press, Copyright 2005

The contractor that signed an agreement with the state to build part of the Trans-Texas Corridor has sent a letter to the Federal Highway Administration inquiring about a $320 million loan.

That inquiry comes despite promises the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) would be built without using tax dollars.

According to the letter, Cintra/Zachry, the consortium that has a contract with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to build the massive transportation project, is seeking the loan in order to build the 42-mile extension of SH 130 from Austin to Seguin. In addition to that leg of the toll road, preliminary plans for the TTC include a proposal to build a rail and utility pipeline corridor east of SH 130 through the Taylor and Coupland areas.

Gabriel Garcia, a spokesperson for TxDOT, said the commitment by Gov. Rick Perry and TxDOT not to use taxpayer dollars for the TTC was intended to refer only to state funding.

"In saying that tax dollars would not be used, we only looked at state funding," Garcia said.

According to Rosanna Salazar, a spokesperson for Cintra/Zachry, the letter sent to the Federal Highway Administration is a "normal process" for seeking funding for major projects.

Kathy Walt, spokesperson for Perry, said the funding sought by Cintra/Zachry would be a loan and not a grant.

"It would be repaid with interest," Walt said.

Mike Sizemore, a spokesman for state Sen. Ken Armbrister of Victoria, questioned whether Cintra/Zachry's solicitation of a federal loan breaks the commitment made regarding how the TTC would be funded.

"The whole thing (TTC) was touted as using private funds," Sizemore said.

In addition to seeking the loan from the federal government, Cintra/ Zachry filed a lawsuit in Austin last Friday seeking to keep its contract with TxDOT to build the TTC from being released under the Texas Open Records Act.

On May 31, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott ruled that portions of the 200-page development agreement between Cintra/Zachry and the state should be released in response to requests from several Texas newspapers. Cintra/Zachry claims in its lawsuit that the development and financial plans in the agreement can remain confidential under state law.

Taylor Daily Press: www.taylordailypress.net

pigicon

Senator Todd Staples, running for Ag Commissioner in 2006, spins House Bill 2702

Keeping things moving in Texas

By Todd Staples

Jun. 27, 2005
Special to the Star-Telegram Copyright 2005


This year, the Texas Legislature successfully addressed two emotional and sometimes controversial issues: the Trans-Texas Corridor and toll roads.

Thanks to House Bill 2702, just signed into law, Texas has stronger protections for private property and water rights, local tax revenue and road access, and business development opportunities along the Trans-Texas Corridor.

The Legislature listened to all sides, including the Texas Farm Bureau, the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers and other agricultural groups, and addressed concerns about the new Trans-Texas Corridor road project.

We protected the rights of local residents against converting existing roads into toll roads. For urban and suburban drivers, we ensured that toll revenues will be spent in the area where they are collected. And we created a blueprint for improving railroad safety and efficiency.

The Trans-Texas Corridor allows needed roads to be completed and opened years sooner, without massive new state spending or higher gasoline taxes for consumers.

In previous generations, the farm-to-market road and federal interstate highway systems sparked stiff and emotional opposition. Today, the Trans-Texas Corridor is generating significant controversy -- some justified, some not. HB 2702 addresses the criticism, especially issues of concern to rural Texas.

Legislators protected local tax rolls, safety regulations, and access and development rights.

HB 2702 requires private Trans-Texas Corridor operators of commercial facilities to pay local property taxes and abide by local zoning and building regulations.

Private contractors may not develop commercial businesses, such as hotels or restaurants, in the corridor right of way. Local landowners do have the specific right to develop property and businesses adjacent to the corridor and within the corridor in cases in which developmental rights have been retained.

Easy access on and off the Trans-Texas Corridor is important to local communities. Texas law now requires each segment of the Trans-Texas Corridor to provide ready on and off ramps for federal and state highways and consideration of access to major farm-to-market, county and local roads where feasible and with the input of local officials.

The final corridor route has not been determined. But for private property owners along the eventual route, the state will be required to pay the fair market value for acquired property and any damaged property.

Property owners can choose to sell their property outright or receive royalty payments from revenues attributable to a segment of a toll project. This innovative solution treats land along the corridor like oil and gas lands, allowing property owners to receive ongoing royalty payments for the use of their land.

State officials will remain accountable and in charge of toll rates and collections. We mandated that the state, not private operators, will oversee toll rates, plans for collection, penalties and any changes to rates and policies.

HB 2702 helps end the controversy over converting existing non-tolled roads into toll roads. State law now prohibits converting existing roadways to toll roads unless local county commissioners and voters approve. The construction of additional tolled lanes along existing roadways is allowed, so long as motorists have access to the same or greater number of non-tolled lanes after a project is completed.

We strengthened the environmental review process for the Trans-Texas Corridor and ensured that federal and state governments maintain complete environmental oversight.

Once federal environmental approval is granted, the Texas Department of Transportation must post the final environmental impact statement on its Web site and provide notice to each state legislator and county commissioner representing an impacted area.

The protection of water rights and quality is always a priority in Texas.

Any Trans-Texas Corridor proposal involving the transporting of ground water must provide written notice to local county commissioners and water districts. Pumping ground water from the corridor right of way for private purposes is strictly prohibited.

HB 2702 also responds to the rash of railroad accidents in Texas and the need for improving freight rail systems. The state Transportation Department now has the authority to acquire, finance, construct, maintain and operate freight or passenger rail and administer most federal rail dollars coming into Texas. This move allows rail relocations and safety improvements to be planned and implemented by a single state agency.

The one thing on which everyone can agree is that Texas needs new roads and transportation solutions.

Twenty-two million people live here, and another 13 million are expected by 2040. The number of vehicles traveling our roads is up 61 percent since 1980 and growing.

New roads and toll roads have always been controversial. HB 2702 shows that reasonable rural, urban and suburban residents can work together to protect local and private property rights and get needed transportation infrastructure built years sooner.

Better transportation is on the way, and that's good news for public safety, commuter convenience and economic opportunity in every region of our state.

State Sen. Todd Staples, R-Palestine, represents Texas Senate District 3. He is chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Homeland Security and sponsored HB 2702 in the Senate.

Fort Worth Star-Telegram: www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/

pigicon

"Private property rights were once a hedge against government corruption and abuse."

Homeowners Making Way for Government Bulldozers

The Supreme Court decides property rights aren't rights after all

6/27/05

By Samuel R. Staley
Reason Public Policy Institute
Copyright 2005

You may think your home is your castle, but the Supreme Court decided it is just on loan from your friendly local government. The government can now bulldoze your home anytime it wants as long as the legally-required number of public hearings are held and politicians have some semblance of a plan for economic development on your land.

That's what any reasonable person reviewing the Supreme Court's recent decision in Kelo v. New London might think. Hundreds of local governments already take private property. The Supreme Court's ruling in the Kelo eminent domain case just gave them the rubber stamp they wanted.

Kelo involves a hardy band of home and business owners in the historic neighborhood of Fort Trumbull in New London, Connecticut. The city, acting through its redevelopment arm, condemned the homes and businesses to make way for new professional office buildings, swanky retail shops, luxury condos and apartments.

The city's "vision" for the neighborhood, local officials hope, will generate more tax revenue. The newer buildings, bigger tax base, and more revenue constituted a "public use" in their eyes - and the Supreme Court agreed.

Eminent domain is not a new government power. It's been around for centuries and is enshrined in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. What's new is the brazenness in which governments use it. Eminent domain is supposed to help governments when they need to provide a public use. In the past, building roads, acquiring land for schools and public buildings, constructing bridges and canals, or providing parks qualified.

In the mid-1980s, that changed when the Michigan Supreme Court allowed the City of Detroit to demolish a close-knit, working class neighborhood called Poletown to make way for a factory. The city condemned the properties, bulldozed the homes, and handed the land over to General Motors to build its plant.

The Michigan Supreme Court reversed its decision in 2004, but the damage was done. The decision unleashed a wave of condemnations, like New London's, that shoved long-time residents and businesses aside in the name of economic development.

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the Court's majority opinion on Kelo.

The Court says public use can now basically be interpreted as any function of government. Indeed, this is exactly what Justice Sandra Day O'Connor fears. "Today nearly all real property is susceptible to condemnation on the court's theory," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her strongly-worded opposition to the ruling. "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

Sound extreme? Consider the words of New London's lead attorney during oral arguments in the case:

Justice O'Connor asked if the city could condemn a Motel 6 and hand the land over to a Ritz-Carlton if the city thought the move would generate more tax revenue.

Wesley Horton, New London's attorney, replied, "Yes, Your Honor. That would be okay."

"So you can always take from A and give to B if B pays more taxes?" asked Justice Antonin Scalia.

"If they are significantly more taxes," said Horton.

A shopping mall or business complex will almost always generate significantly more tax revenue than private homes, meaning we are all at risk.

Sad is it may be, many people ignored eminent domain in the past because it seemed to apply mainly to the poor; removing so-called "urban blight". The poor have always been at a disadvantage because they were renters or couldn't afford attorneys to fight city hall. Now, eminent domain is removing the middle class. Only the rich may be safe from the government bulldozers.

Private property rights were once a hedge against government corruption and abuse. This protection was so essential the Founding Fathers explicitly limited its use to special circumstances - public uses only - and required "just compensation" be provided to homeowners.

Now, there appears to be few "rights" left in private property rights. The U.S. Supreme Court just told every city, county, and state government that they can go after your home to increase revenues. The Court even put it in writing.


© 2005 Reason Public Policy Institute: www.RPPI.org

pigicon

Cintra-Zachry sues to block release of its development and financing plans

Contractor sues to keep Trans-Texas details hidden


6/26/05

By RAD SALLEE
Houston Chronicle
Copyright 2005

The controversial Trans-Texas Corridor project continues to travel a hard road.

On Friday Cintra Zachry, the only developer under contract with the state for a leg of the project, asked a court in Austin to block release of its development and financing plans, which Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has said are public record.

The Houston Chronicle sought Abbott's opinion after the Texas Department of Transportation refused to reveal its plans for the project, called TTC-35.

It includes a $7.2 billion toll road from Dallas to San Antonio that could eventually reach from Oklahoma to Mexico.

Rail tracks and pipelines could come later.

Under a March 31 agreement with TxDOT, Cintra Zachry has the inside track to build the facilities and operate them for the state for the next 50 years. When the agreement was signed, its contents were made public except for the nuts and bolts contained in the conceptual plans.

The lawsuit, filed by the company and TxDOT against Abbott, contends that these plans "represent the core of Cintra Zachry's proprietary information" and that the company would be harmed by their release because TxDOT may still choose another developer who comes up with a better idea.

Abbott's opinion had rejected similar arguments. Attorney Joe Larsen, who represents the Chronicle on open records matters, called the lawsuit "a waste of taxpayer money" and "simply a further effort to conceal the terms of a contract that the Texas taxpaying public will have to live with for the next 50 years."

Cintra Zachry also took heat last week for inquiring about a low-interest loan of $320 million from the Federal Highway Administration.

The corridor idea was sold to the public as costing nothing to taxpayers.

Although a loan is very different from a taxpayer-funded grant, this type of loan carries interest rates well below market levels.

Meanwhile, the Texas Legislature may have helped project backers over one early hurdle — opposition from the Texas Farm Bureau to having rural land divided by the broad corridors.

A transportation bill from this year's regular session says the state must compensate owners for loss of value when access to part of their property is reduced by the corridor.

The bill also bars withdrawing underground water from the corridor and taking it off-site.

Addressing another issue that caused anxiety for officials and business people along the planned route, the bill limits development on the corridor to gas stations and convenience stores.

Houston Chronicle: www.chron.com

pigicon