Private Toll Company Takes a Toll

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

State Representative Cindy Burkett, R-Sunnyvale, filed a bill to strip the Texas Turnpike Corporation of its power of eminent domain, so it would no longer have the authority to condemn and take land. Currently, Texas Turnpike Corp. may be the only private entity that can still condemn land to build toll roads. In 1991, the State of Texas repealed a law that gave private toll companies the power of eminent domain, but Texas Turnpike Corp. was grandfathered.

House Bill 565 sponsored by Representative Burkett was sparked by public outcry over the Texas Turnpike Corp.’s attempt to build the State’s only private toll road northeast of Dallas. The company had originally intended to build the road as part of its Northeast Gateway project, which aims to create an alternative to nearby Interstate 30. However, after intense opposition from cities and residents on the road’s path, the company backed down from building it.

Texas Turnpike Corp. has been searching for a project to develop for a while. When the company’s chief executive, John Crew, was asked how many projects the company had completed in its more than 20-year history, Crew responded “we haven’t done any.” Last year it eventually focused on the Northeast Gateway project.

Neal Barker, a spokesman for the corporation, said the facility offered by the project is “a reliever to 30 and a time saver.” Crew added that the company is just trying to build projects that the state and others can’t afford.

Contrastingly, landowners and residents in the path of the toll road were overwhelmingly opposed to building the road. Christopher Kurinee, a Hunt Country resident, claimed the Texas Turnpike Corp. was “a private company trying to take private land.”

Allowing private companies the power of eminent domain for “public use” continues to be a contentious issue in Texas as private companies can generate profits from their projects. According to Representative Burkett, “the eminent-domain process should begin and end with officials who are directly accountable to the voters, not to corporate shareholders.”

House Bill 565 was referred to the House Committee on Transportation and approved as substituted. It will likely be placed on the calendar for consideration by the full House of Representatives.

See the bill here.

Co-authored by Justin Hodge and Maithili Bagaria.

If you have any questions about HB 565, feel free to contact Justin Hodge at jhodge@jmehlaw.com

TxDOT Considers Expanding I-10 Between Houston and San Antonio

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Texas Department of Texas (TxDOT) may soon expand the 200-mile route between San Antonio and Houston on I-10 by one lane in each direction, according to San Antonio Express-News.

TxDOT has not yet identified funding for this expansion and still has to complete an environmental review of the project before it can finalize plans.

Several road projects to improve mobility between large Texas cities – San Antonio, Austin, Dallas and Houston – have already been initiated in an effort to accommodate Texas’ population growth in recent years. Many of these projects may require the use of eminent domain to acquire the land needed for expansion, and landowners should pay attention to proposed projects near them. To read more about some of these projects, click here.

Co-authored by Justin Hodge and Ayla Syed.

If you have any questions about upcoming road projects or eminent-domain cases in Texas, please feel free to contact Justin Hodge at jhodge@jmehlaw.com

High-Speed Train Between Houston and Dallas May Not Come So Fast

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The anticipated high-speed passenger rail line that would travel between Houston and Dallas may not come to fruition if the Texas Senate passes a bill proposed to limit the eminent-domain powers of companies that own such lines.

The proposed bill, initiated by Senator Lois Kolkhorst, R – Brenham, defines a high-speed rails as an “intercity passenger rail service that is reasonably expected to reach speeds of at least 110 miles per hour” and excludes companies that own such rail systems from exercising the power of eminent domain for those projects. The Texas Senate Transportation Committee voted Senate Bill 1601 out of committee on April 8, according to The Texas Tribune.

Texas Central High-Speed Railway, the private company developing the $12 billion train line, has maintained that it has private funding for the entirety of the project and would be able to compensate landowners for the property needed to complete the project more than the government typically can during condemnation.

“We have the ability to pay more because it’s not taxpayer dollars,” Texas Central President Robert Eckels said. “We, in fact, can pay more as a private company and expect that we will be paying more.”

Proponents of the proposed bill argue that the private company should not have the authority to use eminent domain for its own profits.

“Eminent domain is probably the most horrific power that the government has, and to dole that out to individual companies that can misuse that or use it for projects that result in profits, we have to be very careful about doing that,” said Senator Bob Hall, R – Edgewood.

Representatives of Texas Central, however, feel that the company is being singled out as hundreds of private firms are currently authorized to use eminent domain in Texas, according to the Texas Tribune.

“All that we ask is that this train be treated like any other private train in Texas,” said Richard Lawless, Texas Central chairman and CEO. “It does not seem fair to us that this train should be prohibited in Texas just because it goes faster than other trains.”

While the state government may not authorize the use of eminent domain to develop this project, Texas Central has proposed its route to the Federal Railroad Administration.

“Quite honestly, I’d rather do this as a Texas project,” Eckels said.

The train is expected to travel to Dallas from Houston in less than 90 minutes, making one stop in College Station. The company hopes to complete the project by 2021, but a few legislative road blocks may slow its progress.

Read the proposed SB 1601 here.

Co-authored by Justin Hodge and Ayla Syed.

If you have any questions about this article, please feel free to contact Justin Hodge at jhodge@jmehlaw.com

JMEH Partners Testify in Front of Senate Committee, Advocate for Bill to Stop Eminent-Domain Abuse

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Marrs Ellis & Hodge, LLP, partners Justin Hodge and Luke Ellis testified in front of the Texas Senate Committee on State Affairs on March 9, 2015, in favor of a bill that would better protect landowners in eminent domain proceedings and help ensure that the fear of legal fees would not prevent landowners from seeking just compensation for their property.

Senate Bill 474, proposed by Senator Lois Kolkhorst, R — Brenham, would require those seeking to acquire property to reimburse landowners for their attorney’s fees if the award by the special commissioners exceeds the condemnor’s offer for the property prior to the proceedings by at least 10 percent.* The bill would also require reimbursement of attorney’s fees if the case moves beyond the special commissioners’ hearing to court and the award exceeds the condemnor’s offer prior to the proceeding by at least 10 percent.

Luke Ellis

Luke Ellis

Ellis and Hodge were the first among the five individuals
invited to testify in front of the Texas Senate Committee on State Affairs. Ellis opened the testimonies by describing a situation in which a landowner purchases a piece of land for $300,000. The landowner then builds a home on the land and spends $200,000 on construction, bringing the landowner’s total cost to $500,000.

An entity wants to use that land for a project that would serve some public purpose, and that entity offers the landowner $300,000. The landowner, knowing the amount he or she has spent on the property, then seeks legal counsel from an attorney. The attorney fights the case for a period of one to four years, at the end of which a jury awards the landowner $500,000.

“Has that landowner recovered in full for the benefit that [his or her] land has provided to our entire community?” Ellis asked the committee after setting up his example. “The answer, under the Texas system as it exists today, is a very definitive no.”

Ellis stated that the landowner does not recover in full in this process because of the attorney’s fees and legal costs required to combat low offers in court, especially when the landowner has to pay for experts and appraisals to counter the condemnor’s experts and appraisals. Ellis then went on to read the language in both the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that requires condemning authorities to give landowners just compensation for their properties and Article 1, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution that requires adequate compensation.

“But, in Texas, as the system exists, you don’t get just compensation or adequate compensation,” Ellis said. “You get adequate compensation less the cost it takes you to achieve adequate compensation, and that’s not a fair system for Texas landowners.”

SB 474 graphic2

This graphic is not representative of every path a condemnation case can follow and does not in any way offer legal advice. This graphic simply presents a the number of paths a hypothetical case could follow in context of SB 474.

The debate on SB 474 centers on whether the bill would have a fiscal impact on the government and increase the cost of condemnation. When presenting her bill, Senator Kolkhorst stated that the bill would not significantly increase costs to the government, and Ellis agreed with this in his testimony. Ellis said this bill would decrease litigation as it would incentivize condemning authorities to make a fair offer that landowners would want to accept initially.

“Condemnors have absolutely no incentive to treat landowners fairly. They’re a business. There is no penalty to make low offers to start,” Ellis said of the current system, adding that condemning entities often make low offers to “wash away” those afraid of a legal battle.

Ellis also described the abuse of power that often occurs in these legal battles as condemnors who can afford to run up legal costs and/or expert fees often do so to tire the landowner’s financial resources and ability to fight low offers.

“We believe [SB 474] is the first and a very strong step in trying to balance the scale,” Ellis said.

Hodge also testified and gave a personal testimony of his family’s experience in an eminent-domain proceeding. His family owned a ranch near the Bell-Williamson county line, and his grandfather had spent his lifetime drilling more than 70 water wells on that ranch looking for water to feed their livestock.

Hodge’s grandfather passed away, and Hodge’s father found seven commercial-grade water wells on the property. Hodge’s family contracted with local communities to make use of those water wells until the State of Texas, through the Department of Transportation (“TxDOT”), decided to build a safety rest stop on the ranch in 2006.

“They wanted 28 acres, and, in fact, they were taking the property where six of those seven commercial water wells existed,” Hodge said. “That was a shock to us. We begged and pleaded with TxDOT to move the safety rest stop.”

TxDOT did not move the location of the rest stop. Hodge’s family fought the state’s $350,000 offer for six years. The state did not include any compensation for the water underneath their property in its offer and argued that the water underneath the property did not belong to the landowners, a position that Hodge said ran contrary to nearly a century of case law in Texas.

The Hodge family case went in front of a jury of six people in Bell County, who awarded the family $5.8 million as just compensation for their loss of the water and land.

“You’re probably asking, ‘Well, aren’t you made whole? Isn’t your family made whole in that situation?’ And, the answer is no,” Hodge said to the committee. “We had to pay, as a family, more than $2 million in attorney fees to get that $5.8 million, and that doesn’t include expert costs associated with [the legal battle]. That was money my grandfather had worked hard for to pay for college educations for his great grandchildren, my father’s grandchildren, and my children.”

“This is a bill that will help landowners like my family, landowners…who have to bear a huge cost for the community” Hodge added. “[SB 474] stops abuse.”

Senator Kolkhorst modeled the bill after similar bills in effect in other states in an effort to help stop this abuse.

“The spirit of SB 474 is just to say, if you need to, you can access the courts,” Kolkhorst said. “And, if you were wronged, those fees will be paid by those who wronged you.”

SB 474 is currently pending in the Texas Senate Committee on State Affairs. If passed as currently written, the bill would go in effect September of 2015.

*In Texas, if a landowner and the condemning authority cannot agree to an amount for the property, a panel of three court-appointed special commissioners will determine an award for the property.  If either party objects to the award, the case then proceeds to a court where a judge or jury determines the fair-market value of the property in question.

If you want to hear Ellis and Hodge’s testimonies, please visit  http://youtu.be/H9psHmXLexw. If you have any questions about SB 474, please feel free to contact Justin Hodge at jhodge@jmehlaw.com.

Co-authored by Justin Hodge and Ayla Syed.

New RRC Rules Require Pipeline Companies to Do More than Simply Check a Box

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Texas Railroad Commission’s (RRC) new pipeline permitting rules that require oil companies to verify their common-carrier status went into effect last week, marking a significant move away from the previous rules that simply required companies to check a box to claim common-carrier status.

The RRC has maintained that its T-4 permit only allows a company to operate a pipeline and does not automatically entrust the company with the power of eminent domain. The limit of this power, the RRC says, remains with the court as it always has.

The new rules will require up-front proof of common-carrier status. Pipeline companies previously only offered proof that they carried unaffiliated third-party product if and when its common-carrier status was challenged.

This rule change comes after the landmark 2012 case in which the Texas Supreme Court ruled that a pipeline company must do more than show its T-4 permit as proof of its common-carrier status. (Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd. v. Denbury Green-Texas, LLC, 363 S.W.3d 192 (Tex. 2012)).

If you have any questions about the new rules or anything related to eminent domain, please feel free to contact Justin Hodge (jhodge@jmehlaw.com).

Coauthored by Justin Hodge and Ayla Syed.

Texas Independence Day

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As Texans, today we pause to honor those who fought for our independence.  Texas Independence Day symbolizes the strength of those who call Texas home – a resolve to fight for what is fair and right.

Five months prior to the day Texas gained its independence, a fearless group of Texans, who referred to themselves as “Texians,” successfully resisted Mexican forces who were ordered to take a small bronze cannon mounted to the blockhouse in Gonzales, Texas.  In a bold act of defiance, the Texians fashioned a flag containing the phrase “Come and Take It” along with a black star and an image of the cannon.

During that October night, the Texians crossed the river at approximately 7 pm. It is reported that a thick fog rolled in at midnight, delaying the Texian army. Just before sunrise, the Texians reached the Mexican army. With the darkness and fog, the Mexican soldiers could not estimate how many men had surrounded them. At dawn, the Texians emerged from the trees and began firing at the Mexican soldiers. After a failed attempt at a “mediated settlement,” the Texians fired their cannon at the Mexican army. The Mexican army retreated realizing it was outnumbered and outgunned.

Today, Texans battle government and private takings of land for pipelines, power lines, and road projects by condemnation.  There is very little difference between the Mexican army taking the cannon and a private company improperly using eminent domain to take property.  See Texas Rice Land Farmers vs. Denbury Green Pipeline, 363 S.W.3d 192 (Tex. 2012).  Let us celebrate our founding “Texians” wisdom in Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution.  It states:

“(a) No person’s property shall be taken, damaged, or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person, and only if the taking, damage, or destruction is for:

(1) the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property, notwithstanding an incidental use, by:

(A) the State, a political subdivision of the State, or the public at large; or

(B) an entity granted the power of eminent domain under law; or

(2) the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property.

(b) In this section, “public use” does not include the taking of property under Subsection (a) of this section for transfer to a private entity for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues.

(c) On or after January 1, 2010, the legislature may enact a general, local, or special law granting the power of eminent domain to an entity only on a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each house.

(d) When a person’s property is taken under Subsection (a) of this section, except for the use of the State, compensation as described by Subsection (a) shall be first made, or secured by a deposit of money; and no irrevocable or uncontrollable grant of special privileges or immunities shall be made; but all privileges and franchises granted by the Legislature, or created under its authority, shall be subject to the control thereof.”

As Texans, our Constitution guarantees us the right to “adequate compensation” for the taking of property through eminent domain.  Because the “Texians” bravely fought for this right, today we celebrate Texas Independence Day and honor our fallen heroes.

Justin Hodge is a partner with Johns Marrs Ellis & Hodge LLP in Houston, Texas.  He defends against government and private takings throughout the State of Texas.

Texas Landowner Wins $445,000 Judgment Against Power Company for Lost Property Value

“Case may signal future litigation over power line easements.”

WICHITA FALLS, Texas – A North Texas landowner has won a $445,365 judgment against an electric power delivery company after his land lost value when an easement was taken for a high-voltage electric transmission line.

The judgment signals a win for other Texas landowners whose properties are being targeted as power line companies flood the Public Utility Commission (PUC) with applications seeking approval for similar transmission lines.

The recent dispute represents a fundamental debate: How much does a high-voltage power line easement, with its tall towers and unsightly appearance, reduce the value of property it crosses? A Wichita County jury agreed that an entire parcel was worth less, not just the land taken for the easement.

“This judgment sends a clear message. Texas landowners should understand that they have a constitutional right to collect fair damages when power lines lower the value of their land. Landowners only get one opportunity to recover, but the easements remain forever,” says Austin-based eminent domain attorney Luke Ellis of Johns Marrs Ellis & Hodge LLP, lead trial counsel for the property owner.

The dispute began in 2011 when Oncor Electric Delivery Co. LLC sued Edward Clack to gain 33.6 acres of easement on his Burkburnett property for a 345,000-volt power line, the highest-voltage lines built in Texas. The Oncor easement, 160 feet by 1.7 miles, bisected Mr. Clack’s property. Oncor initially offered him less than $55,000 before raising the offer to nearly $140,000.

After a three-day trial in Wichita County Court at Law No. 1, jurors awarded Mr. Clack $393,165, the full amount he requested. On Feb. 12, Judge Gary Butler entered a judgment of $445,365, which includes interest and court costs. Oncor may appeal.

The case is Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC v. Edward Clack, No. C-330-E.

Over the past year, the PUC has received new power line applications affecting Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, South Texas, San Antonio and the Texas Hill Country.

Johns Marrs Ellis & Hodge LLP, a trial and appellate boutique with offices in Austin and Houston, focuses on representing landowners in eminent domain proceedings, commercial litigation, probate and appeals. Visit the firm online at http://jmehlaw.com/the-firm/.

For information on the power line judgment, please contact Kit Frieden at 800-559-4534 or kit@androvett.com.”

Abbott Boosts Road Budget by $4 Billion

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Governor Greg Abbott made public roads a focal point during his first State of the State Address earlier this week and included it as the third of five emergency items Texas will tackle this year.

The new governor’s budget includes an additional $4 billion for Texas roads. The governor attributed this increase in budget to funding from Proposition 1 (read more here), the current State Highway Fund, and the reallocation of half of the state’s new and used vehicle sales taxes outlined in Senate Bill 5 (read more here).

As evident from the governor’s State of the State Address, transportation will remain at the forefront of politics this year. The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has a number of projects already in motion already and announced a list of potential projects earlier this year (read more here).

One of the projects picking up speed right now is the Aggie Expressway, expected to be completed within the next few years. This project will extend State Highway 249 from Houston to Navasota, where it will connect to Highway 6 in Grimes County. The expressway could also require up to nearly 600 acres of right-of-way acquisitions.

While a less congested path to Aggieland, or College Station, will certainly help fans commuting on game days, this path will come at a cost to many local land owners.

If you have any questions regarding this or any other road projects, please feel free to contact Justin Hodge (jhodge@jmehlaw.com). To read Abbott’s full Address, click here.

Coauthored by Justin Hodge and Ayla Syed.

Is ‘Actual Progress’ Being Made?

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I believe governments should only use their eminent domain authority as a last resort, but the truth is, it’s a power rampant with abuse and misuse…Texas has a storied history of defending private property rights, and this legislation will preserve that proud tradition by holding government more accountable.” – Senator Charles Schwertner

Eminent domain laws in Texas may receive a slight tweak if recently-filed Senate Bill 479 passes into legislation. Senator Charles Schwertner, R – Georgetown, authored the bill that could more narrowly define “actual progress,” a broad phrase that currently requires those who invoke the power of eminent domain to make “actual progress” toward the intended use of the condemned land within 10 years.

After the 10-year period, the landowner can repurchase the land at the original price paid by the condemning entity. This may prove more difficult than necessary for the landowner as the law currently does not clearly define “actual progress,” and Schwertner hopes his bill will help remedy that ambiguity in an effort to better protect landowners in eminent domain cases.

“I believe governments should only use their eminent domain authority as a last resort, but the truth is, it’s a power rampant with abuse and misuse,” Schwertner said in an announcement of SB 479, according to the Austin Business Journal. “Texas has a storied history of defending private property rights, and this legislation will preserve that proud tradition by holding government more accountable.”

The proposed amendment to 21.101 of the Texas Property Code would define actual progress as including three of the following:

  1. The “performance of [a] significant” amount of labor on the property or other properties related to the development of the intended project;
  2. The purchase or obtainment of a “significant” amount of material for the property or other properties required for the public use project;
  3. The hiring of and/or “significant” work by an architect, engineer, or surveyor for the purpose of developing the property or other properties for the public use project;
  4. Application of state and/or federal funds for the project for which the property was purchased; or
  5. Application of a state and/or federal permit to develop the property or other properties related to the public use project.

(Read the proposed bill here). If you have any questions about SB 479 and its potential impact on eminent domain cases in Texas, please feel free to contact Justin Hodge at jhodge@jmehlaw.com

Coauthored by Justin Hodge and Ayla Syed.

Big Funds Keep on Turning, Texas Highways Keep on Stirring

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A big move by Texas legislators could potentially funnel $25 billion over the span of a decade to the State Highway Fund – the second headline-making highway funding plan proposed this year.

Texas Senator Robert Nichols, R – Jacksonville, filed two pieces of legislation, Senate Bill 5 and its complementary constitutional amendment, Wednesday that could potentially move a portion of funds raised from new and used vehicle sales tax to the State Highway Fund.

Nichols serves as the chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, and the bills were co-authored by Senator Jane Nelson, R – Flower Mound, the chairwoman of the Senate Finance Committee.

If approved by the State Legislature, the legislation would appear on the November ballot for voter approval and follow a path to implementation similar to Proposition 1 (Read our post on Proposition 1 here).

Additional highway funding would give TxDOT more leeway to expand and build upon current infrastructure and also allow it to finance new roadway projects. These projects often include condemnation proceedings to acquire land needed for expansion from current landowners. As Texas’ transportation infrastructure continues to expand, eminent domain will stay at the forefront of legal battles produced by new projects.

*Post title modified from “Proud Mary,” a song made popular by Tina Turner.

Coauthored by Justin Hodge and Ayla Syed.