|
Eminent domain, beaches on ballot
Published October 20, 2009
EDITOR’S NOTE — Last of three stories examining the proposed constitutional amendments voters will decide Nov. 3.
Spending an afternoon at the beach soon could be a constitutional right if a proposition is approved by voters.
Proposed amendments on the Nov. 3 ballot will give voters a chance to decide if the Open Beaches Act should be added to the Texas Constitution.
Another proposed amendment will eliminate government entities’ authority to take private property for the use of economic development and limit legislators’ authority to do so.
They are two of the 11 proposed constitutional amendments that also address how property appraisals are assessed, establishing a fund for emerging research universities and giving the Texas Veterans Land Board the permanent right to issue bonds.
If approved, the amendments become effective after the vote is certified.
Early voting started Monday and will end Oct. 30.
PROPOSITION 9
Would protect the right of the public to access and use public beaches along the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico.
“It takes what currently exists, the right to visit the beach, and puts it into the Constitution,” said Jim Suydam, spokesman for the General Land Office.
The Open Beaches Act, passed in 1959, gives the public “the free and unrestricted right” to beaches.
Supporters say the amendment would help keep private property owners off land that should be open for the public to enjoy. The amendment also would prevent legislators from making any changes to it, Suydam said.
“It can’t be changed without the voters,” he said.
Some homeowners in Surfside Beach said they agree with the law and proposed amendment but worry about how it will be enforced.
Homeowners in that area said erosion is placing their homes on the beach, and thus violating the law. Some of them have been in an almost eight-year legal battle with the land office over the constitutionality of the Texas Open Beaches Act and whether they should be paid for the value of their land.
The government should be looking to solve the erosion problem rather than removing homeowners from their land, said Macario Ramirez, a homeowner in the lawsuit.
“They’re deflecting attention from the real problem,” he said. “I don’t think it’s the right approach.”
A state appellate court ruled in August the homes were not being taken without just compensation and denied homeowners’ claims for damages.
PROPOSITION 10
Would allow elected members of emergency services districts to serve four-year terms.
Commissioners of emergency services districts, which are political subdivisions of the state, are allowed to serve only two-year terms, according to the Texas Legislative Council. The constitution does include exceptions for the railroad commission, hospital districts and conservation and reclamation districts.
The amendment would add elected members of emergency services districts to the exceptions, said John Peeler, attorney for Emergency Services District No. 3.
It would have no effect on Brazoria County emergency districts because members are appointed by Brazoria County commissioners.
PROPOSITION 11
Prohibits local entities from taking property through eminent domain to be used for private economic development. The amendment also would limit legislative power to grant eminent domain authority to local entities.
If a similar amendment had been passed several years ago, it might have prevented the intense legal battle between Western Seafood Co. and Freeport officials, said Wright Gore III, whose family owns the company.
The city attempted to use eminent domain to obtain property — which included 400 feet of Western Seafood’s property — to build a marina, which city leaders saw as a way to help jump-start a revitalization in the port city.
After a six-year legal battle and a change in leadership, both with the city and Freeport Economic Development Corp., the force behind the marina project, the city settled with Western Seafood in February.
“There are some instances where I could see eminent domain should be used,” said Dan Tarver, the development board’s president. “But that should only be for a highway or a hospital.”
Gore said the amendment could have helped his family, but it won’t entirely eliminate the use of eminent domain for private development because it leaves room for legislators to use it for some projects.
“Prop. 11 is just lip service,” Gore said.
Share |
Save |
Mail |
Print
|
|
|
 |
|
FREE BAY BOAT WITH WATERFRONT PURCHASE Get
...
Click for all
Top Ads listing
|
