TXDOT Hearings on 820 Toll Roads July 1

Notice of a meeting July 1
The issue is not just tolls but letting a foreign country control Texas land in perpetuity.

Focus on Local Issue - *TOLL ROADS ACTION ALERT*
You might have seen the article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on Friday about the North Loop 820 expansion, and how it will be paid for through very expensive toll roads, to be constructed by CINTRA, Rick Perry's special-interest Spanish corporation that courted the Trans Texas Corridor. In a nutshell, Bud Kennedy is reporting that the proposed toll for EACH WAY in the new toll lanes will be $4.00 for a total of $8.00 roundtrip. Republican County Commissioner Gary Fickes is very much responsible for this situation as he was the one who led the cheerleading effort on the Regional Transit council to get this plan passed.

TXDOT is holding a Public Hearing in Richland Hills to get community input. Let's get out there and show them what kind of "input" we have for them.

Public Hearing for Loop 820 Toll Road
Tues., July 1, 6:30pm
Richland Hills Church of Christ
6300 North East Loop 820
Richland Hills, Texas
Click here for a map

Link to Star Telegram Article about 820 Toll Lanes

Link to TXDOT Public Hearing in Richland Hills

Link to Toll Tag Application

Bud Kennedy: Worst bottlenecks in North Texas? Right here in Tarrant
By Bud Kennedy - Fort Worth Star Telegram - June 20, 2008
We’re No. 1.

But not in a good way.

Northeast Loop 820 in Hurst is the worst bottleneck in all of North Texas, according to a new study that ranks the region’s roads among America’s most choked, behind only Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and Washington.

There’s more bad news.

Not only is the 820-Airport Freeway interchange the No. 1 bottleneck — worse than anyplace in Dallas— but the Loop 820 exits at Denton Highway and Rufe Snow Drive are Nos. 2 and 3.

Overall, Northeast Tarrant County drivers face worse traffic than anyone in Dallas or Houston, according to a study of truck GPS data compiled by INRIX Inc. of Seattle.

Only Austin — where Interstate 35 amounts to a 5-mile-long elevated parking lot — has a freeway as crowded as Loop 820, and that city’s traffic overall is nowhere near as bad as Fort Worth’s.

What’s more, the region’s No. 4 worst bottleneck is Interstate 35W north of downtown Fort Worth. It’s congested an average of 7 hours a day.

Basically, Houston and Dallas already fixed their roads. We’re waiting for state money.

I would like to assure you that every county and city official is working on the problem.

But I couldn’t find many of them yesterday. For all I know, they were stalled in traffic at Holiday Lane.

When North Richland Hills Mayor Oscar Trevino called back, he was weaving down neighborhood streets to escape U.S. 377.

He described Loop 820 as "just ugly."

"The people who have to drive that every day don’t say nice things," he said. "It’s bad for our city. Businesses want to come, but they see the traffic and say, 'Why would I get into this?’ "

County Judge Glen Whitley is very familiar with the time-waste potential of Loop 820. He lives in Hurst.

"It’s a big drawback to the whole county," he said. "The traffic north of Fort Worth is so unreliable that nobody can predict how long it’ll take to get to work."

There’s a solution in the making. But lots of Texans won’t like it.

Three Spanish-owned companies are in the running for a $1 billion contract to widen Loop 820 and operate two private toll lanes. The toll would be $4 each way.

The project is part of the North Tarrant Express, a new tollway network slow off the drawing board in Austin.

"We can’t get Austin to move forward," Whitley said. "It’s ridiculous that this is the last part of Loop 820 to be improved."

A public hearing July 1 at 7 p.m. at Richland Hills Church of Christ will give both residents and tollway-haters a chance to vent about both the slow plans and high tolls.

Terri Hall of San Antonio leads an anti-tollway group, Texans Uniting for Reform & Freedom (TURF). She said she opposes any private tollway.

"The bottom line is, this the most expensive way to expand that road," she said. "It means the highest possible cost to taxpayers and drivers, and hands over money to foreign companies. When the state has a record budget surplus, it’s hard to see how there’s not money for that road."

Call it the Billion-Dollar Bottleneck.

Regional Transportation Council considers how to pay for rail service

By MICHAEL A. LINDENBERGER - The Dallas Morning News - Thursday, June 12, 2008


If North Texans are going to see a new 251-mile network of suburban rail lines by 2030 – an idea that remains a cherished goal of elected officials and regional transportation leaders – they are going to have to pay for it, and pay steeply.

The project will cost about $9 billion – an amount that would be funded almost entirely by new fees and taxes


The question of what those fees should be took center stage Thursday as the Regional Transportation Council voted to authorize a plan that will cobble together a menu of possible tax increases to pay for what is being called Rail North Texas.

Among the fees that the staff has proposed are higher property taxes, higher vehicle registration fees, a new sales tax on gasoline and a new tax on new car purchases, a new resident impact fee, among others.

Between now and August, council members will meet with Texas lawmakers to find support for a menu that will produce the hundreds of millions of dollars needed each year while drawing the lowest possible amount of opposition from lawmakers and voters alike.

Several elected officials who spoke Thursday said public support for the rail idea has only increased in the wake of worsening traffic and soaring gas prices. But as always, the question came down to how to pay for it.

Plans had initially called for the rail expansion to be paid for by sales tax increases, a funding source that would require legislative approval. That idea – which would allow cities to hold sales tax elections to raise rates above the state cap of 8.25 percent – has failed in each of the past two sessions of the Legislature.

And while the sales tax idea remains officially a possibility, Thursday's action – which followed only cursory discussion – made clear council members have all but given up on winning lawmaker support.

"We've walked into several buzz saws with the sales tax idea, and we have been told that that is not the panacea that is going to get us through Austin," said Fort Worth Councilman Jungus Jordan, who led the planning group behind the idea to request a series of smaller tax increases instead of the sales tax hike.

The decision to seek a menu of easier-to-digest tax or fee increases is smart politics, said Tarrant County Judge Glen Whitley. "It's a higher-odds proposition," said Mr. Whitley, who was elected vice-chairman of the RTC Thursday. Dallas City Council members Linda Koop and Ron Natinsky were elected chairwoman and secretary, respectively.

Still, each of the new fees will have their own and in some cases just-as-determined opponents who will have to be outfoxed in Austin, a prospect that has worried even some of the initiative's strongest advocates.

Car dealers, for instance, are hardly eager to support new taxes on vehicle purchases, Mr. Morris and Mr. Whitley each noted.

In the meantime, Mr. Whitley and others said, voters are ready to spend more on transportation – not just in spite of the higher gas prices and worsening traffic, but because of them. "If we don't have transit here eventually, there won't be any economic development," said Collin County Commissioner Joe Jaynes.

Mr. Morris added, "Four-dollar gasoline is really going to require all of us to look at our world in a different way. We may not need to have three or four cars in a single household. It just requires seeing our way forward."

Glen Whitley does good - Judge to EPA: Beef up clean-air plan

By Faith Chatham - Aug. 2, 2007

NTTA gets OK for 121 toll project

State board must still approve deal
By MICHAEL A. LINDENBERGER and JAKE BATSELL - The Dallas Morning News - Tuesday, June 19, 2007

The North Texas Tollway Authority won the strong support Monday of local officials charged with deciding who will build the lucrative but controversial State Highway 121 project.

The Regional Transportation Council voted 27-10 to recommend that the state reverse course and award the contract to the tollway authority – and not to the Spanish construction firm Cintra.

The decision marks a reversal from last winter when the Texas Department of Transportation had tentatively awarded the contract to Cintra, which had beat two other private bidders with a promise to pay the state government nearly $3 billion for the right to collect tolls on the 26-mile road for the next 50 years.

"It's probably been the toughest decision that I've had to make in the 10 years I have been on this committee," Tarrant County Judge Glen Whitley said just before casting his vote for NTTA.

Mr. Whitley said the authority's bid promised even more up-front money to the state than Cintra.

"If we go with Cintra, we do leave money on the table," he said. "We leave money on the table up front, we leave it on the table in the payments over the 50 years. ... So, sure it is a risk, but this the crown jewel of toll projects in the state, and maybe even in the country."

The Texas Transportation Commission is expected to render a final decision on the project at its June 28 meeting in Austin.

Over the last two weeks, Cintra had tried again and again to underscore the risks it said were inherent in the NTTA bid. The authority offered more money up front, Cintra said, but it did so at a risk of increased toll rates in the future if traffic volume forecasts are not met.

Many of those casting the 10 votes in favor of Cintra seized on those arguments, and on analyses by the Texas Department of Transportation and global accounting firm Price Waterhouse Coopers that reached similar conclusions.

"We cannot gamble on this," Denton County Commissioner Cynthia White said. "We have to go with what is a for-sure deal. Cintra comes out ahead against NTTA, and that is the cold hard facts. Theirs is the only proposal that guarantees a [financial] return to the region at the end of the contract."

NTTA chairman Paul Wageman had countered earlier in the day, however, that council members should go with the bid by the entity they know best, and with the project that paid the biggest amount of money up front.

"In the end, I think it was that our proposal was a superior financial deal, and because of our track record in this region,"

a smiling Mr. Wageman said after the vote.

Jose Lopez, the president of Cintra's North American operations, said the bidding process was fair. But he said his company's proposal was clearly better.

"We will just have to wait and see what the TxDOT commissioners have to say, since they are the ones that have the final say," Mr. Lopez said. "We respect the decision by the RTC, but we still are certain that our proposal was better, way better, for the region."
The Texas Transportation Commission's five members, all appointed by Gov. Rick Perry, are not bound by Monday's vote.

That worries state Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, who attended Monday's vote.

Ms. Shapiro noted that the two Transportation Department's representatives on the Regional Transportation Council voted in favor of Cintra's bid. Last week, TxDOT's chief financial officer said his department would recommend Cintra for the contract – if commission members asked for an opinion.

"That's probably pretty indicative of what they're going to do on the 28th," Ms. Shapiro said. "I am very concerned about it and intend to be there to listen and to watch and to see how it's handled.
"The commitment that ... [Texas Transportation Commission members] made – and I heard it with my own ears – was that whatever the region decided was what they would move forward with. This was overwhelming, 27-10, and I think that is a very strong message to take to TxDOT."

Bill Hale, one of two TxDOT employees on the council, said he expects Texas Transportation Commission Chairman Ric Williamson to give great weight to Monday's vote.

"That's what he has said in the past they intend to do," said Mr. Hale, the top engineer on TxDOT's Dallas-area staff.

Mr. Hale, who voted in favor of awarding the contract to Cintra, said he will now support NTTA's involvement in the project.

Ms. Shapiro's concern reflects the mood of many state lawmakers.

The transportation commission gave Cintra preliminary approval for the Highway 121 contract in February. Immediately, lawmakers reacted angrily to the prospect of signing a lease with a foreign company to operate toll roads that will span generations. And they quickly pressured the RTC to invite the NTTA to submit a bid, paving the way for a rival to Cintra.

"It is exactly what I had hoped would happen," Ms. Shapiro said. "We gave them the opportunity today, but they had to perform and they had to produce. And they did."
Fort Worth City Council member Wendy Davis said that if the contract ends up with NTTA, North Texas may lose out on private investment in the future.

"What we are going to do today is not just going to impact our decision on Highway 121, but I can assure you that it will impact our ability to attract private businesses in the future," she said. "If I was Cintra, I would learn a valuable lesson. And that lesson is that no matter how many steps are put in place to make sure the process is fair, the deck is going to be dealt in such a way that favors" a public entity such as NTTA.

Still, Richardson City Council member John Murphy, who voted for NTTA, encouraged his colleagues to feel good about the vote, no matter which side they favored.

"This is about the future and the future has changed for us," Mr. Murphy said. "Not long ago we were at a point where we were saying, 'Oh my gosh, where are we going to get the money to build roads?' Now, we're saying instead, 'Show us the money.' "

A cliff hanger in DFW -- suspense, intrigue, deceit and a final vote for the hometown guys on SH121

By Faith Chatham - Wed Jun 20, 2007

The NCTCOG SH 121 workshop on Thursday and the RTC meeting Monday were long and tense. The Monday meeting to vote on awarding the Contract on SH121 ran over two hours longer than orginally scheduled. Until the last 15 or 20 minutes of the meeting, I felt that the vote would probably go to Cintra. During both days, I never heard aggressive or hostile questioning of Cintra, but many members of the RTC questioned (and/or preached) to NTTA so aggressively that it seemed hostile.

Read blow by blow analysis of the the vote to let SH 121.

Board members and conflict of interest ethics violations

Several members of the NCTCOG RTC are probably in violation of Chapter 176 of the Local Government Code which reads:

(4) describe each affiliation or business
relationship with a corporation or other business entity with
respect to which a local government officer of the local
governmental entity:
(A) serves as an officer or director; or
(B) holds an ownership interest of 10 percent or
more;
(5) describe each affiliation or business
relationship with an employee or contractor of the local
governmental entity who makes recommendations to a local government
officer of the local governmental entity with respect to the
expenditure of money;
(6) describe each affiliation or business
relationship with a person who:
(A) is a local government officer; and
(B) appoints or employs a local government
officer of the local governmental entity that is the subject of the
questionnaire; and
(7) describe any other affiliation or business
relationship that might cause a conflict of interest.
(d) A person described by Subsection (a) shall file an
updated completed questionnaire with the appropriate records
administrator not later than:
(1) September 1 of each year in which an activity
described by Subsection (a) is pending; and
(2) the seventh business day after the date of an event
that would make a statement in the questionnaire incomplete or
inaccurate.

Refer to the Chapter 176 Local Government Code

The By Laws of the RTC cites adherence to Chapter 171 of the Local Government Code which has a more narrow interpretion of Conflict of Interest.

At the June 14 RTC Meeting of the NCTCOG, a member inquired about possible conflicts of interest by RTC members specifically in relation to the upcoming vote on awarding the lucrative SH121 contract at the Monday, June 18th RTC meeting. A specific question was asked about members of the RTC who are TxDOT officials refraining from voting. A NCTCOG official replied that it would be left to the members, including NTTA Board Member Dallas Mayor Lauri Miller to decide whether they have a conflict of interest.

In a February phone call to NCTCOG Executive Director Mike Eastland, he stated that "We (the NCTCOG) do not usually attempt to enforce ethics conflict of interest rules on members of committees who are appointed by member governments." When questioned about a specific member with alliances which created at the very least, the impression of a conflict of interest, Eastland replied: "You'll have to go to the District Attorney in the county where the member lives to file a complaint of ethics violations." Concern was expressed to Mr. Eastland that the NCTCOG did not attempt to monitor ethical conduct of members serving on their boards and commissions in regard to actions in relation to their service on NCTCOG Boards and Commissions.

Application of ethics rules by Councils of Governments varies:
in March 2007, the Executive Director of the East Texas Council of Governments said: "We take very seriously the actions of members of boards and commissions as well as staff in service to the COG. Our attorney explains very clearly to all our members that they are to avoid conflicts of interest and the perception of conflicts of interest." He said that they "monitor and try to avoid possible violations," rather than referring them to the home county of the members. This statement was made in a telephone call within days of NCTCOG Executive Director Mike Eastland's explanation that at the NCTCOG they leave it to each member to determine if they have a conflict of interest.

At the RTC June Public Meeting in Arlington, concern was expressed that three members of the RTC serve on the Board of Directors of NASCO CORRIDOR, an organization with a mission statement to influence local, regional, state and federal governments to enact laws and fund improvements and construction of multi state tranportation corridors to priotize the shipment of international cargo over passenger transportation solutions. NCTCOG Transportation Director Mike Morris stated he saw no conflict of interest in three NASCO CORRIDOR Board Members (Tarrant County Judge Glen Whitley, RTC Chairwoman Denton County Commissioner Cynthia White and RTC member Denton Mayor Pro-tem Tex Kamp) serving on the Regional Transportation Committee, where they set policies for this region and vote awarding contracts for construction projects.

Thursday June 14 at the RTC meeting was the first time since these queries earlier in the Spring to Executive Director Mike Eastland, that RTC members have openly discusses possible conflicts of interest of RTC members. Those members who voiced the subject are to be commended. Commissioner Maurine Dickey of Dallas asked how the NCTCOG RTC bylaws address conflict of interest. Staff replied that they 'were not sure' but would research it and post the bylaws on the RTC website before the Monday meeting.

Examining the bylaws today revealed that the bylaws address adnerence to Chapter 171 of the Texas Local Government Code. It is recommended that the NCTCOG instruct its members and vendors that they must also adhere to Chapter 176, which addresses Members of Board of Directors as having conflicts of interest in addition to those who own 10% financial interest in a business or investment.

ACTION ALERT - Tarrant County Commissioners Court and Eminent Domain

by Faith Chatham - June 11, 2007

Tarrant County Commissioner to vote on sending letter
Urging Governor to veto HB 2006 at Regular meeting
Tarrant County Commissioners Court - 10 a.m., Tues., June 12

Linda Lancaster addressed the court last week and urged them not so sign the Letter Judge Glen (supercorridor at public expense) Whitley wants them to send to Governor Perry urging him to veto HB 2006 - the eminent domain bill.
The bill, which restores some of the protections the NASCO Corridor group pushed to get enacted. (Whitley and RTC chairwoman Cynthia White and Denton Mayor Pro-tem and RTC member Tex Kamp - serve on the NASCO Corridor Board of Directors) NASCO lobbied to get propert rights stripped from property owners through passage of legislation legalizing use of private public partnerships for construction interstate (international) super transportation corridors funded by gasoline tax money, public bonds and tolls on existing and future state and federal highways. NASCO'S MISSION STATEMENT includes:

To be a strong advocacy and lobby group for transportation and related issues and interests of the jurisdictions along the corridor.

We urge all Tarrant County Citizens to appear at the Tarrant County Commissioner's Court meeting tomorrow (Tuesday, June 12 -10:00 a.m.) and speak out against the Commissioners Court sending this letter urging Governor Perry to veto this eminent domain bill.
To gain federal, provincial/state, and municipal government support in all three NAFTA countries.

To gain and maintain tri-lateral private sector membership support for NASCO’s vision and goals.

To push for, facilitate and support any Corridor related projects or initiatives that focus on enhancing the security, safety and efficiency of transportation, trade processing and logistics systems along the corridor

All state representatives and state senators from this 16 county North Central Texas Region voted for the bill, yet Tarrant County Judge Glen Whitley is pushing hard to get the Governor to veto it! Citizens of Tarrant County testified at the TxDOT hearing, expressing outrage and anger that the eminent domain laws had been changed to accomodate the special interests of big monied backers of the TTC -- many of whom are financial backers of NASCO).

Anyone who attempt to persuade the public to believe that it is necessary to veto this bill in order to acquire property at a fair price through the exercise of eminent domain is lying. This bill does not prevent the exercise of eminent domain for legitimate uses which are in the public good. This bill defines legitimate use of eminent domain:

A governmental or private entity may not take private property through the use of eminent domain if the taking:
(1) confers a private benefit on a particular private party through the use of the property;
(2) is for a public use that is merely a pretext to confer a private benefit on a particular private party; [or]
(3) is for economic development purposes, unless the economic development is a secondary purpose resulting from municipal community development or municipal urban renewal activities to eliminate an existing affirmative harm on society from slum or blighted areas under:

While restoring some protection to the citizen-property owner, this bill does not prevent exercise of eminent domain for legitimate projects for the public good.

(c) This section does not affect the authority of an entity authorized by law to take private property through the use of eminent domain for:
(1) transportation projects, including, but not limited to, railroads, airports, or public roads or highways;
(2) entities authorized under Section 59, Article XVI, Texas Constitution, including:
(A) port authorities;
(B) navigation districts; and
(C) any other conservation or reclamation districts that act as ports;
(3) water supply, wastewater, flood control, and drainage projects;
(4) public buildings, hospitals, and parks;
(5) the provision of utility services;
(6) a sports and community venue project approved by voters at an election held on or before December 1, 2005, under Chapter 334 or 335, Local Government Code;
(7) the operations of:
(A) a common carrier pipeline [subject to Chapter 111, Natural Resources Code, and Section B(3)(b), Article 2.01, Texas Business Corporation Act]; or
(B) an energy transporter, as that term is defined by Section 186.051, Utilities Code;
(8) a purpose authorized by Chapter 181, Utilities Code;
(9) underground storage operations subject to Chapter 91, Natural Resources Code;
(10) a waste disposal project; or
(11) a library, museum, or related facility and any infrastructure related to the facility.

It seeks to clarify and restore balance and fairness to the process, by stating that

the governmental entity must authorize the initiation of the condemnation proceedings at a public meeting by a record vote.

It stipulates that the public use for which the property is condemned must be stated in the motion.
If the property is not used for that use in ten years, the land owner is allowed to repurchase the land for the same amount the governmental entities paid them for it.

The bill stipulates that governmental entities seeking property through eminent domain condemnation process must negotiate with the landowner fairly.

BONA FIDE OFFER REQUIRED. An entity with eminent domain authority that wants to acquire real property for a public use must make a bona fide offer to acquire the property from the property owner voluntarily. A bona fide offer is an offer that is not arbitrary or capricious and is based on a reasonably thorough investigation and honest assessment of the amount of the just compensation due to the landowner as a result of the taking.

It stipulates that citizens must be informed of their right to repurchase the property.

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION REQUIRED AT TIME OF ACQUISITION. A governmental entity shall disclose in writing to the property owner, at the time of acquisition of the property through eminent domain, that:
(1) the owner or the owner's heirs, successors, or assigns are entitled to repurchase the property if the public use for which the property was acquired through eminent domain is canceled before the 10th anniversary of the date of acquisition; and
(2) the repurchase price is the price paid to the owner by the governmental entity at the time the governmental entity acquired the property through eminent domain.

It requires that the governmental body must submit evidence of fair market value before the property is condemned.

EVIDENCE. (a) For the purposes of this section, market value is the price a property will bring when offered for sale by a person who desires to sell the property, but is not obliged to sell the property, and is bought by a person who desires to buy the property, but is not under a necessity to buy the property.
(b) As the basis for assessing actual damages to a property owner from a condemnation, the special commissioners shall, subject to the Texas Rules of Evidence, admit evidence on:
(1) the market value, before the condemnation, of the property being condemned;
being condemned;
(2) subject to Section 21.042, the net change to the market value of the property owner's remaining property, considering both injury and benefit to the property owner; and
(3) [(4)] the use of the property for the purpose of the condemnation.

It also attempts to address loss of value and access issues:

(e) If a portion of a tract or parcel of real property is condemned for the use, construction, operation, or maintenance of the state highway system or of a county toll project described by Chapter 284, Transportation Code, that is eligible for designation as part of the state highway system, the special commissioners shall consider any diminished access to the highway and to or from the remaining property to the extent that it affects the present market value of the real property, including any factors considered when determining actual fair market value of property for ad valorem tax purposes.

It provides some relocation compensation.

(a) A department, agency, instrumentality, or political subdivision of this state shall [may] provide a relocation advisory service for an individual, a family, a business concern, a farming or ranching operation, or a nonprofit organization that [if the service] is compatible with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance Advisory Program, 23 U.S.C.A. 501, et seq.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state shall [may], as a cost of acquiring real property, pay moving expenses and rental supplements, make relocation payments, provide financial assistance to acquire replacement housing, and compensate for expenses incidental to the transfer of the property if an individual, a family, the personal property of a business, a farming or ranching operation, or a nonprofit organization is displaced in connection with the acquisition.

If the courts find that govenmental entites do not make bona fide good faith offers to land owners based on fair market value, this bill stipulates that the landowner/citizens legal fees will be paid by the governmental entity.

(d) If a court hearing a suit under this chapter determines that a condemning entity did not make a bona fide offer to acquire the property from the property owner voluntarily as required by Section 21.0112, the court shall abate the suit and order the condemnor to make a bona fide offer. If the court finds that by filing a petition under Section 21.012 or by filing any other motion or pleading in the proceeding initiated by the filing of that petition the condemnor violated Chapter 10, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, the court shall order the condemnor to pay:
(1) all costs as provided by Subsection (a); and
(2) any reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the owner that are directly related to the violation.

This bill is about fairness.

Judge Whitley is not serving the good of the citizens of Texas and of Tarrant County in pushing for a veto of this bill.

Eminent Domain, lies, manipulation and deceit on both forks of the Trinity

Jim Schutze of the Dallas Observer calls D Magazine publisher Wick Allison on distortation of "facts" (Trinity Toll/Park project)
Ed Oakley mutters against bothersome property rights in Dallas City Council;
Citizens face elected officials on both sides of the Trinity over eminent domain and property rights
By Faith Chatham - June 8, 2007
The saga in Dallas continues between media moguls, (DMN and D Magazine publisher Wick Allison, City Council person Angela Hunt and Dallas Observer columnist Jim Schutze. Biased coverage of the political scene is nothing new in big city journalism, but DMN under BELO's coverage of toll roads and transportation frequently seems to translate it into a new art form.

For a couple of weeks I've been posting articles on the Trinity Park-- er Tollway -- with sparring between opponents and proponents of the Trinity Toll Way. Trinity Vote has attempted to clarify the facts.

This week Jim Schutze's column (My Brain on Crack - Wick Allison, The Trinity Park Project. Have I gone mad?)

It costs money. We have to borrow. We have to pay more taxes. It's an investment.

But look. This is also like a car deal. We went to the showroom in 1998 when we voted to let the city borrow $246 million for the Trinity River Project. We chose a fancy one—the Lexus SUV with the leather and the mag wheels and the two DVD players and the GPS navigation.

Now it's eight years later. They're trying to get us to take this Ford Escape with steel rims, cloth seats, a cheap portable CD player with earbuds and a map of Texas in the glove box. And the contract says we could owe them a billion dollars.

Irritated with coverage which he's termed "fiction" rather than "fact", columnist Jim Schutze ripped the facade off of the DMN's editorial a few weeks ago. City Council woman Angela Hunt took her speaking tour on the road and penned an open letter to Wick Allison to set the record straight. A soft-spoken very articulate lady with a Mission, Council Woman Hunt is upset that the project described to the citizens before they were asked to vote on the bonds for Trinity Park is vastly different now than what the citizens approved. She's (along thousands of other registered voters who have signed the Trinity Vote petition) are demanding that the Toll Road be taken back before the voters before ground is broken. Hunt outlines the differences between what the citizens were told prior to the bond election and what the City of Dallas, TxDOT, the RTC of the NCTCOG and other planners plan to deliver with those precious bond dollars which get paid by hard-earned dollars out of citizens’ pockets plans to actually build. The Belmont Debate between Councilwoman Hunt and Craig Holcomb has made it onto YOU TUBE VIDEO)

Numerous decades old DMN news stories and public meeting descriptors of Trinity Park with its PARKWAY, described as a 'low speed 45 mile and hour parkway with numerous entrances in to the park' have surfaced recently. Big dollars backers of the Toll Road (Trinity Commons Foundation) have been on the speaker’s circuit, trying to strike fear into the public about flood control and potential loss of Federal flood control dollars if the Toll Road proposal is killed. Jim Schutze came out with his computer keys blazing over that one. He quoted U.S. Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson who fought hard for those flood control dollars and clarified for the Dallas Observer readers that there the flood control dollars remain for flood control whether any road ever gets built in or near or through the Trinity flood plane near downtown Dallas! Amid charges (and a YOU TUBE VIDEO of what some allege are "paid educational consultants" who functioned as political operatives during the May 12th City of Dallas elections to interfere with the petition drive to collect signatures calling for a referendum on the Trinity Toll Way, and charges that they were employed by the non-profit Trinity Commons Foundation promoting the Toll Way, and rumbles about possible lawsuits and/or charges for violations of election law, the plot thickened in Dallas and the soup smelled worse than the stagnant sediment ponds cropping up in Wise County and other places where injection gas drilling is changing the landscape. Schutze referred to "Laura's goons" in earlier columns.

Angela Hunt earned accolades from Schutze in the spring for detailed research and for saving reporters from boredom at meetings of Dallas City Council Trinity River Committee.This week's Jim has devoted his column to taking DMagazine publisher Wick Allison to task. I'm including excerpts here but urge you to read it in its entirety.
Jim Schutze is one of the best columnists in this area. He's consistently refused to cave to pressure by publishers or peers to water down his rhetoric or avoid topics which fly counter to the financial interests of the high and powerful, politically ambitious, or his own publishers (which has changed over the years, probably due to his refusal to sell out his journalist integrity to satisfy the corporate board room.

Schutze writes:

Wick Allison, the publisher of D magazine, has devoted his entire publisher's note in the December edition to a discussion of whether Jim Schutze—that would be moi—has been telling the truth or distorting the facts about the Trinity Project. He doesn't come right out and say it, but I think his implied conclusion is that Jim Schutze smokes crack.

So first off, let me take you back to what we saw in that showroom eight years ago. Before the 1998 bond election the "We Love Dallas" bond campaign committee published a brochure showing a sailboat regatta on a lake the length of downtown with a huge fountain in the center and promenades and terraces on the downtown bank.

The brochure's promise to voters was clear and explicit: "If you've ever taken a stroll down San Antonio's Riverwalk, sat by a lake in New York's beautiful Central Park, or driven along Austin's scenic Town Lake, then you know how valuable these recreational resources are to a city...

"With absolutely no tax increase to Dallas citizens, the Trinity River Project is the key to making 21st Century Dallas a world-class city—an 8,500-acre greenbelt bursting with new business and entertainment."

I'm a big advocate of following the money. Schutze lays out the Trinity Park -er Toll Way? Project shortfall.

In response to my open records demand, Trinity Project director Rebecca Dugger provided me with numbers to show the ultimate cost of each portion of the plan as it exists now. She also gave me the amounts available from the 1998 bonds and all of the money that has been found from other sources to help pay for the project.

I put all this in a simple spreadsheet and figured the shortfalls. Let me just give you some highlights. According to the city's own official numbers, provided to me in response to a legal demand for them, the cost for building trails alone will be $36.149 million.

Of that, the bond money will pay for $10.256 million. The city told me it had found $7.067 million from other sources. That leaves a shortfall of $18.826 million for the trails.

Look at it again. The money we approved eight years ago now only pays for 28 percent of the cost of the trails. The city has persuaded other entities to pick up an additional 20 percent. That means you and I, dear local taxpayer, are on the books for an additional 52 percent or almost 19 million bucks just for trails.

I sat at a conference table in City Hall and challenged the mayor, the city manager, Dugger and Assistant City Manager Jill Jordan to show me where my shortfalls were wrong. I gave them my spreadsheets.

Here are samples of the things they did not argue with: a $16 million shortfall to make the river curvy instead of straight; a $50 million shortfall for park roads; a $19 million shortfall for digging out the proposed lakes; a $27 million shortfall for improvements to S.M. Wright Boulevard.

To me and in public, Mayor Miller has been offering an excuse for these shortfalls that strikes me as especially dishonest. Her mantra is that everything costs more these days. It's sort of the Neiman Marcus defense: Only a cheapster would be surprised that stuff costs more than it used to.

Tarrant County citizens are up in arms over Tarrant County Judge Glen Whitley, Whitley, a board member on NASCO, an international non-profit organization based in Dallas with a stated mission to develop interstate international super transportation corridors to speed up shipment of freight from ports in Mexico through Texas to Kansas City and Canada), fervently lobbied the Texas Legislature to exclude the DFW region from the 2 year moratorium on toll roads. Now Whitley is trying to persuade the Tarrant County Commissioners Court that it is wise for them to sign a letter urging Governor Perry to veto HB 2006 - a bill which curtains some of the dubious practices enacted in the previous session of the Legislature in TTC empowering legislation (promoted by NASCO!). Arlington school teacher Linda Lancaster showed up at Tarrant County Commissioners Court Tuesday (6-5) and said her piece. They delayed voting on signing the letter until next week. Hopefully many others will show up at 10:30 a.m. Tuesday the 12th and remind those folks that the powerbrokers who met in Fort Worth last week with NASCO are not the people who voted them into office and can vote them out!
The Dallas Observer readers also weigh in this week (published June 7, 2007) on Eminent Domain. Kudos to Fort Worth Star-Telegram political reporter Anna Tinsley for alerting readers to Whitley's attempt to undermine the citizens of Tarrant County to the detriment of landowners all over Texas.
Pirates of the Council |Hardee Har |Past Tense |And Finally Pirates of the Council and subtitled: The Pixies, The Police, Dallas comics, property rights ,

Is it safe?: "The Good Laura"—perfect title for Jim Schutze's article (May 31) exposing Bill Blaydes' ruthlessness and Ed Oakley's incredible disregard for individual property rights.

Folks, they can come after your property if they can do what Blaydes with Oakley's assistance tried to do to Jack Pierce at Hollywood Overhead Doors.

Makes you wonder if it's safe to invest in Dallas anymore. Well, at least Blaydes and Oakley will be private citizens in a few weeks.

Sharon Boyd

Jim Schutze's column (published May 31, 2007) The Good Laura, Or, how Bill Blaydes locked up the Bastard of the Year award

I have to tell you this story because it's three things: 1) an appalling example of arrogance and sleaziness at City Hall, 2) a stirring example of integrity and courage at City Hall, and 3) it's about Laura Miller.
This guy owns a business that has been in his family since 1938. Since the 1950s the business has occupied a series of metal barns on nine acres down in a hollow near Walnut Hill and White Rock Trail, in a little leftover remnant of countryside swallowed up by the city.

A small equestrian center is near him, as is a DART train track and a creek called Jackson Branch. You could pass this place a thousand times and never know it's there.

Across the DART tracks from him, major development plans are afoot. The guys doing the developing want this guy's nine acres. Offered to buy him out. He said no. Not interested.

Jack Pierce's business, Hollywood Door, makes garage doors, but its main business is the hand manufacture of huge, very heavy industrial overhead doors. His product is expensive to ship because it's so heavy. Over the last seven decades, his family has developed a good regional trade based in part on having the business right where it is.

He does not want to move, at least not at the prices being offered. The location is worth more to him than its real estate value. This company employs 40 people, and it makes a product, which it actually sells to other people.

Makes stuff. Sells stuff. This is what used to be called a "business," as opposed to insider grease-ball political land-flipping, which is what some people think is a business today.

Got it so far? Developers offer. Business owner says no.

Then he gets a letter. An official letter. A City Hall letter. It appears that Bill Blaydes, the council person for that area, wants to call a hearing to see whether the city should yank the man's zoning out from under him, which would force him to sell.

The saga moves to the City Council chamber:

I mean, are you still with me here? The guy's been on the property since the 1950s. His business is almost invisible from the road, emits no smoke or noise, generates very light traffic. But Commissar Blaydes comes along with his letter and pretty much tells him to get the hell off his own property.

And even worse in my book: While Pierce is standing there at the microphone looking up at the mighty councilpersons with his life and his family's business in his hand, Councilman Ed Oakley, one of two candidates for mayor in the June 16 runoff election, launches into this big, sleazy package of lies aimed at pushing him into giving up.

Talking in his trademark incomprehensible used-car-salesman-on-crank cadence, Oakley says to Pierce: "Let me just ask you hypothetically if you were to go through this process and the process and the staff would allow you to have your area that allowed the use that you have there today which is a manufacturing facility and in addition to that it was created into a p.d. or sub-district that allowed for the other uses such as mixed-use or whatever the neighborhood would determine but you were allowed to be legal and conforming but along with that some of the obnoxious uses that maybe the neighborhood would be fearful of such as a recycling plant or something would be left out of that and would allow you to continue the family business in perpetuity which would be legal which would be a given zoning which would allow you to use that specific use but then the additional uses would allow for residential or mixed-use development or office or retail which aren't allowed there today which actually gives you more land-use rights than what you would have today giving up some of the things that would be obnoxious would you be amenable to sitting down having that conversation?"

Pierce gave the perfect answer. He said, "Sir, I am out of my depth here today."

Read more

Oakley, a City Hall apologist who has replaced Laura Miller as the city's point person working with Trinity Commons Foundation to get the big high speed Toll Road built through the what the voters voted to fund as a Park, is not high on the list of many of his former supporters. His opponent in the Dallas's Mayoral runoff also favors building the Parkway, but as an outsider, Tom Leppert seems less offensive when he discusses it than does insider Ed Oakley. Oakley, who represents a district in the southern quadrant of the city, should be concerned for the property rights of the little guy, but seems to spout the Corporate, big developer, big dollar interest line more than adhering to a more populist Democratic line. The Dallas County Democratic Party made an unprecedented move in endorsing a candidate in what is normally a nonpartisan city race, yet many of the Democratic activists I know are less than enthusiastic about the prospects of having Mr. Oakley as Mayor. Objections do not seem to relate to his openly gay lifestyle but to his conduct in rubbing elbows with the rich and powerful and failure to champion the plight of the little man in eminent domain squabbles and other issues when John Q Citizen must face off against the City of Dallas.

In previous column's Schutze has chided DMN reporter Steve Blow for superficial coverage of City Council and the Trinity Toll /Park Project in particular.

Today, as our fledging group of activists (DFW REGIONAL CONCERNED CITIZENS) trot down to the NCTCOG offices on Six Flags Drive in Arlington to tell the RTC and NCTCOG staff how their policies disturb us, it is encouraging to open my e-mail box and find Jim Schutze's column. Schutze can make dead serious squabbles entertaining. The Texas Legislature has scattered and I'm left to summer re-runs on television. Honestly, video links to Texas Senate Transportation Hearings and battles on the Texas House Floor as representative after representative asked Speaker Craddick to vacate the chair provided much more entertainment to me this Spring than slick news entertainment journals on network TV. (For me, one of the definite pluses to watching the Texas House and Senate via internet is that they don't cover Anna Nicole, any of her offspring or relatives or alleged paramours!)

Maybe it's those early bedside stories read to me as a child about knights and the round table and crusaders rescuing the underdog from the wicked, selfish despot that are rekindled when I watch Angela Hunt and Jim Schutze take on Trinity Commons, big corporate donors and Dallas City Hall. Whatever it is, I'm gratified that the Dallas Observer fights the giant with their feather.

In Fort Worth, Mayor Mike Moncrief (dubbed by the Fort Worth Weekly as the "GASFATHER" for his facilitation of the drilling of hundreds of gas wells in the densely populated cowtown,( and Fort Worth City Council members voted to send a letter to Perry urging veto of HB 2006 (restoring protection to landowners from seizure of property through eminent domain for private commercial development. Decades of property rights were bartered away by legislators in the 78th and 79th session of the Texas Legislature by massive changes to the Texas Transportation Code and eminent domain laws were enacted by state representatives and state senators who had accepted substantial campaign contributions from pro-toll road proponents. Speaker Craddick and Lt. Governor David Dewhurst moved the bills at rapid speed through their branches of the house. (Craddick, Dewhurst, Perry, Abbott, and Susan Combs all accepted campaign donations from Zachry Construction and Zachry family members. A significant correlation emerged between Democratic and Republican incumbents who accepted Zachry and other toll road proponents campaign contributions and their roles in sponsoring, voting for and moving TTC/CDA enabling legislation through both houses of the Texas Legislature. Public outcry against the taking of hundreds of thousands of acres of Texans unified grassroots activist in both parties to descend upon Austin. This past legislative session several folks who were instrumental in getting these bills passed stood and appeared to repent. (Steve Odgen, Florence Sharpio and others). When it was time to vote, however, Odgen's "Come to Jesus" contrition evaporated and he voted for Perry's detested "market valuation language" which many think negates the two year moratorium on CDA toll roads for most of the state.

It's been a busy season. Keeping up with who's pulling what and how the truth is twisted to give an illusion but the citizens are left holding lots of debt, empty promises, and developers, politicians, and engineering firms and highway contractors sit licking their lips with cream all over their greedy mouths seems to surpass the energy it must have required British Royalty to keep up with the palace intrigues in centuries past. We may be "tilting at windmills" but with citizens' access to the internet and writers like Jim Schutze of the Dallas Observer and Jeff Prince of the Fort Worth Weekly maybe enough voters will wake up and realize that Judge Glen Whitley, Mayor Mike Moncrief and most of the City Council and County Commissioners in the DFW Region have conspired to fleece them of property and to double tax them for use of public infrastructure! Hammering on computer keys helps, but ultimately it is the voter's responsibility to evaluate whether local officials are truly looking out for citizens' welfare. Pushing that button or marking that little box in the election booth is ultimately the only way we can depose folks who misuse their office to lobby to ensure that the rich and powerful get richer and richer and the honest working folks forfeit property and political privilege to the dark room schemes of scum bags who think that the TTC is good for Texas!

Eminent domain letter is delayed

By ANNA M. TINSLEY - Star-Telegram Staff Writer - Wed, Jun. 06, 2007

Tarrant County commissioners must wait to send a letter to Gov. Rick Perry asking him to veto an eminent domain bill, because the full court must approve such a move, and one member wasn't present at Tuesday's meeting.

Even so, Arlington property owner Linda Lancaster spoke to the Commissioners Court, urging them to instead send a letter supporting the bill.

"Why on earth would elected officials think citizens want less protection from eminent domain?" she asked. "We depend on you for protection and representation."

The issue: House Bill 2006 would give landowners more rights when governments take property through eminent domain, a controversial practice in which local governments appropriate land for public projects. The bill would ensure that landowners receive good-faith offers, be compensated for damage done to adjoining property, and have a chance to buy back their land -- at the same price they received -- if it isn't needed in 10 years for the development.

The cost: Officials have said the measure could cost the state an extra $1 billion a year in transportation projects.

The status: Perry has until June 17 to sign or veto bills. Commissioners say they hope to vote on sending a letter asking for a veto Tuesday.[Tuesday, June 12th at 10:30 a.m.]

Roll call: Commissioner Gary Fickes was not present Tuesday, preventing the vote.

Read Linda Lancaster's address to the County Commissioners

Linda Lancaster addresses Tarrant County Commissioners Court on Eminent Domain

County Judge Glen Whitley presented a letter for the County Commissioners to sign from Tarrant County to Gov. Perry urging him to veto the Eminent Domain bill passed by the 80th Legislature. Linda Lancaster spoke to the Commissioner's Court at their 10:30 a.m. meeting this morning (Tuesday, June. 5, 2007).

I am a resident who is very concerned with the issue of the abuse of the power to use eminent domain. Since the 2005 5-4 Supreme Court ruling, which opened the floodgates for cities and states to seize property from homeowners, business owners, farmers, and ranchers, this has become a hated and dispicable use of government power.

In her dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued that this decision would allow the rich to benefit at the expense of the poor, asserting that "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." Sound familiar?

80% of Americans despise eminent domain in order to hand over private property to private development. There has been a huge public outcry and backlash by ordinary citizens who could have their homes taken and given to private companies for retail stores, Starbucks, golf courses, condos, stadiums, etc. The public has spoken very, very clearly and I assure you that this is not a Republican, Democrat, or Independent issue—it effects ALL of us.

Why on earth would judge Glen Whitley and Tarrant Co. commissioners think citizens want LESS protection from eminent domain??? After watching the city of Arlington demolish street upon street of entire neighborhoods for a private economic development stadium, watching people lose their homes for NE mall expansion, watching Gov. Perry reach out his arms in aim of 500,000 acres for his private Transcorridor Tollroad, why on earth does Tarrant Co. want a screaming headline of "WE WON”T PROTECT YOU FROM WEALTHY PRIVATE DEVELOPERS"? H.B. 2006 seeks to protect regular Texans, yet you want Gov. Perry to veto this bill? And you think this is okay to do so in a very public manner with our blessings?????

Recently North Texas flexed its muscle and persuaded the state legislature to tack on exemptions for the Tollroad Moratorium. I see a direct correlation in wanting to make sure municipalities in our region have NO barriers in seizing property for tollroads and other private projects. Eminent Domain without limitations is a disasterous policy with long-lasting consequences. People who lost their property with the SuperCollider project now look at their former land sitting empty, destroyed and without value. The most famous case in the use of eminent domain in Arlington is of Evelyn Wray, whose property was worth $2.75 million, but who was offered a $351,000 lowball figure and she had to spend tens of thousands of dollars fighting the very same government that is, …. or WAS designed to protect her.

My family has 200 acres in the path of Perry's Transcorridor. I attended the March Transportation hearing and was part of what the Dallas newspaper called the "howling mob". Guess why we're howling? Regular citizens can own land for a century, yet when officials and developers start slobbering over our land, we find out we have no protection.

The most infuriating part -- hearing Gov. Perry claim that the "Transcorridor Tollroad is the ONLY way to relieve congestion off of I35", while TxDOT leader, Ric Williamson, said that the "Transcorridor would NOT relieve congestion". It's all and only about getting the upfront money as a new and very disturbing way to fund our public roadways. To Hell with the public, who will then be saddled with excessive tolls, hidden fees, camera fees, invoice fees, and Non-Compete clauses on existing roadways. My family's land has been in our family for almost 100 years. The thought that it can be taken and turned over to Cintra-Zachary (a huge political contributor) and then used for a private tollroad, hotel, gas station, restaurant, or nothing makes me absolutely nauseous.

The term “public use” as it turns out can be a project that allows the middle-class to be thrown off property to a new set of people with money can live in mixed-use condos. Imagine that. In addition, these new private tollroad projects will depend on very limited protection of private land, esp. from people who are powerless and who don't have money to fight land grabs. We are depend on you for protection and representation.

You have a choice and it is very simple – represent the people of Tarrant County OR represent private companies who want to build private tollroads, private toll bridges, a strip mall, condos, a yacht club, etc. It's bad enough for city/county/state officials to take land with these economic development projects disguised as "roadways", "flood control", and "blight elimination" projects. I cannot imagine elected officials actively seeking the seizure of property and not fighting to protect us from having our land/homes/businesses taken for private development. I cannot fathom that this is okay. If you want to “zip a letter to Austin”, make it one that urges Gov. Perry and lawmakers to SUPPORT protection from the abuse of the power of eminent domain. Represent us, protect us, just don’t take rights away from us.

Linda Lancaster
Arlington, Texas

Linda commented:

I just delivered this message personally as I spoke at the Tarrant Co. Commissioner's meeting today. All Commissioners were there except, Gary Fickes, but his staff member came out in the hall, shook my hand, and thanked me for coming to speak on this issue. I reminded Judge and Commissioners that if they wanted to write a letter as individuals that was okay, but to write publicly and as representatives of Tarrant Co., many people would take offense. Judge Whitley did all of the talking and reminded the audience of the same rhetoric that "buying land for roadways, tollways, and our projects would be too expensive and slow down progress". He said that most people don't want to sit in congestion and want clean air -- two popular talking points that don't justify stealing people's land out from under them.

Tarrant County Commissioners urged by Glen Whitley to urge Gov. to veto Eminent Domain HB 2006

Anna Tinsley of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram alerts citizens that an agenda item on Tuesday, Tarrant County Commmissioner's Court meeting is the Commissioners signing a letter to Governor Perry urging him to veto the bill which restores some rights to citizens against having property lost to private developers through eminent domain.

Judge Glen Whitley is the major advocate of vetoing the bill. A member of the NASCO Board of Directors, a Dallas based international organization which has promoted massive changes to the Texas and Federal Transportation Code during the past 6 years, enabling private companies to acquire property rights to develop infrastructure using eminent domain, Whitley serves on the NCTCOG Executive Board, the RTC, and is in his first year as Tarrant County Judge.

We urge citizens to speak out to Tarrant County Commissioner, urging them not to sign the letter to Governor Perry urging him to veto this legislation. Read this excellent article by Anna Tinsley. She lists the Amendments which will be on the ballot in November in Texas at the end of this informative article.

Tarrant County opposes legislation on eminent domain

By ANNA M. TINSLEY - Star-Telegram staff writer - Sun, Jun. 03, 2007

It pits property owners against government agencies, wildlife conservationists against bureaucrats.

And it's kicked up a firestorm throughout Texas.

Pleas from both sides are flooding into Gov. Rick Perry's office over House Bill 2006, a measure awaiting the governor's signature that would give property owners more protection when forced to turn over their land to the government through eminent domain.

...

Tarrant County is leading the charge against the bill, preparing a letter asking Perry to veto the legislation. The Texas Wildlife Association, the Institute for Justice and other supporters want it to be signed. Perry has until June 17 to take action.

"We are convinced that the legislation ... will result in much greater costs to taxpayers because the overall costs of acquiring right-of-way for public road projects, both local and state, will be increased significantly," the proposed Tarrant County letter says.

Rep. Beverly Woolley, who carried the bill along with fellow Houston Republican Sen. Kyle Janek, said it's geared to protect property rights.

"Texas courts have chipped away at property-owner protections for decades," Woolley said. "I believe governmental entities should not operate with a sense of entitlement to my land.

"House Bill 2006 restores these property-owner protections."

Added protections

If Perry signs the bill, landowners would have more rights when governments step in to take property through eminent domain, a controversial practice that allows local governments to take and buy land for public projects.

The bill would ensure that landowners receive good-faith offers for condemned property, be compensated for damage done to adjoining property, and have a chance to buy back their land -- at the same price they received -- if it isn't needed in 10 years for the development.

If signed into law, the provision would go into effect Sept. 1. The buyback provision would require a constitutional amendment that would go before voters on Nov. 6.

The measure defines "public use" to keep land from being taken for economic development and creates a process for courts to determine whether initial purchase offers are fair.

It has followed sharp reaction to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2005 in a Connecticut case that said local governments could take private homes and businesses for economic development. That same year, Texas lawmakers passed legislation prohibiting such use, and they came back this session to add further protections.

...
Seeking a veto

Tarrant County commissioners will vote formally Tuesday on sending the letter to Perry asking for the veto. Whitley said other counties, including Harris and Denton, are expected to follow suit.

The Texas Municipal League is urging any cities concerned about the bill to send letters to Perry asking for a veto.

"It's much worse than we thought it would be," said Frank Sturzl, the league's executive director. "Requiring the state to pay for loss of access, that has never happened before. That will make some roads very expensive."

Fort Worth officials are still evaluating the bill's impact on city projects.

"We are real concerned about provisions in the bill, and we believe we'll be in more litigation for projects where eminent domain is being used," said Joe Paniagua, an assistant city manager. "We are concerned about the unintended consequences."

Officials with the Tarrant Regional Water District and the Trinity River Vision Authority -- which are overseeing the $435 million Trinity Uptown project -- said the changes to the law should not dramatically affect their operations.

J.D. Granger, executive director of the Trinity River Vision Authority, said the buyback provision shouldn't affect Trinity Uptown, since eminent domain provisions will be used only for land needed directly for the flood-control portions of the project.

Read more