Home > News > Has Governor Perry Seen the Light on Texas Property Rights?

On January 22, Governor Rick Perry announced his support for a Texas constitutional amendment to strengthen property owners' rights against eminent domain overreaching,   Perry also criticized the Texas Supreme Court's unfortunate decision in Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co.,under which a governmental entity can make a low offer and follow the owner's refusal with taking the land.  Government shouldn't use eminent domain to take someone's land without trying to buy it from them first.  It is wrong for any government to make a lowball offer, then respond to an owner's  righteous refusal by taking the land. The government owes land owners a genuine good-faith negotiation, not a land grab," said Perry.

Texas property owners have reason to be skeptical of Governor Perry's newfound fervor.  Perry and the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) pushed hard for six years for the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC), a 400 mile route with takings of up to 1,200 foot, much from unspoiled land separated from current highway right of way.  The land to be taken would have given private, foreign road developers exclusive control of land for commercial development substantially beyond the width needed for highway construction.  TXDOT announced in January it is abandoning the TTC after massive statewide public resistance, but suspicion remains that the new name, "Innovative Connectivity in Texas," masks a continuing intent to take huge amounts of private property, much for the benefit of private developers.

In 2007, pressured by TXDOT, other agencies and developers, Perry vetoed an overwhelmingly-approved bipartisan bill authored by Republican Beverly Woolley to, among other eminent domain procedural issues, strengthen fair compensation provided when land remaining after partial condemnation suffers diminished access.  Perry justified the veto of House Bill 2006 as necessary because the bill would make road construction too costly.  Legislators and property owners objected that all determinants of fair value of privateproperty must be considered, regardless of the state's needs.