That's the termination anchor point of the northeast end of one of the 2 huge arches that holds up the new Dallas Cowboy Stadium in Arlington.That anchor point is right about where Evelyn Wray's house sat. She's is the one most in the news for fighting Arlington over what they wanted to pay her for her property. She ended up with a couple million bucks.
Several of the eminent domain cases are still in court. I have long said it seemed so criminally wrong, to me, to use eminent domain for private gain and then to force people out of their homes and start bulldozing, before they had their say in court.
A new lawsuit regarding Arlington's eminent domain abuse has popped up. The lawsuit is arguing something like the property owners where not paid the proper value for their property. Arguing that proper value is based on highest possible use and value of the property. Or something like that. As I understand it, the lawsuit claims that since a $1.1 Billion building now sits on their property, they were not paid the highest potential value.
Over and over again I've gotten comments telling me I just don't understand how much money this stadium is going to bring to Arlington and how much development is going to take place. These commenters apparently have never been to Texas Stadium and seen the lack of development around that stadium. Or asked themselves, why, if the stadium is so valuable, Irving so easily let it go?
I found interesting info about a previous abuse of eminent domain in Arlington. That time for the Ballpark in Arlington, with someone named George W. Bush steamrolling the eminent domain abuse. As with the Cowboy stadium people fought having their homes stolen. The Ranger ballpark has produced little of the economic boom its backers promised. It all sounds real deja vu.
I'll copy and paste 4 paragraphs about George W.'s foray into abusing eminent domain for private gain....
One of the most famous eminent domain cases involved the Cowboys' future home of Arlington, where baseball's Texas Rangers, at the time owned by George W. Bush, convinced local voters to approve a 1991 tax increase that helped build a new $191 million stadium. The city of Arlington used eminent domain to acquire the property from hundreds of private owners, claiming that the stadium was a "public use," just like highways, schools, or government buildings. Several property owners were lowballed, and court decisions increased their take. (The city, not the team, was responsible for the larger payments. The compensation for one 13-acre plot was increased from $877,000 to $5 million, for example.)
The stadium clearly benefited the Rangers' owners more than anyone else: Bush turned his initial $600,000 investment into $15 million when the team was sold in 1999. But it has produced little of the promised economic benefit to Arlington, and there has never been a real "public use" factor aside from baseball fans' paying their money to see games.
Opponents of stadium deals argue that teams and local governments are getting around the public use issue by placing the stadium or arena in the ownership of a "public sports authority." The property is then tax exempt, and the teams pay nominal rent that is often less than they would have owed in property taxes. The lease arrangements are often lopsided in favor of the teams; many, for instance, allow the franchises to move after a certain time if revenues do not hit projections. This threat to pull stakes and run gives teams strong leverage to renegotiate. If the sports facility were privately owned, there would be no lease to haggle over, and the team would be less willing (and able) to leave.
Without eminent domain, acquiring enough property for a stadium could become expensive. A handful of property owners could hold up an entire complicated deal. "If the court makes the ruling that this is not a valid use of eminent domain, there will be some problems," says Scott Powe, a law professor at the University of Texas. "Huge problems. No doubt, there will be lots of litigating."
A law is winding its way through the Texas Legislature that would greatly restrict the use of eminent domain for private gain in Texas. I'm guessing this law has a very slim chance of passing.
1 comment:
Eminent domain for private gain is the refrain that we keep hearing again and again (no rhyme intended; it could be a crime). Which is a worse (both are bad) form of em.dom. abuse: "buying" people's homes and then demolish them OR as seen in the Carter Ave. controversy where a deep-pocketed, politically-connected, and profit-focused private corporation REFUSING TO EVEN CONSIDER "buying" people's homes so that they can run their massive pipelines under people's front yards? Chesapeake (CHK) claims that they only "need" the 20' deep (originally 30-40' deep which would have pipelines running under and around the houses)easement/right of way so they will only "pay" for that strip of easement right (Note: it is NOT buying or leasing as most people presume; it's giving them "superior/dominant rights" to use the yard for their "neccessity and convenience"? The first abuse at least give people a chance to relocate and start over, but the second (and will be increasingly exercised) abuse essentially TRAPS people in their home so that CHK could make hundreds of million$$ off the pipelines while making "just compensation" (Fifth Amendment to U.S. Constitution and consistent with Texas laws/codes) ranging from $1,500 to almost $16,000 for about the same easement/lot size, with most 50' wideX20'deep right of ways receiving around $4,000 (pre-tax and before increase/s in insurance/s). Guess who got which: the new immigrant with little language and cultural skills with the 50' lot and the media-hungry retired white lady with the 100' lot. Just do the math and think of our currently used phrase "predatory practices". The easement is "permanent" which means that it has to be disclosed to a potential buyer. Who in their right mind (or languistic and cultural sophistication)would pay full market value for such a house with such a "burden" (real estate law term)? Therefore if these people on Carter Ave. want to "make the choice" for their family's health and financial safety (they still pay the taxes, insurance, and upkeep just like city sidewalk/street easements)they must decide to sell at a deep discount (losing their equity and likely selling for cash to landlords--FHA will not approve a loan that has an easement within 10' of the house)or even default on their mortgage in order to "move away and start over again" except they might return to being renters themselves. CHK and their fancy lawyers claim that having these 16-24" pipelines (see the explosion last week in S.A. at www.woai.com --the homes and people on Carter Ave. would not make it if it were to happen here, and it will--just see recent explosions in nearby counties)"will have no effect on the rest of the property at all". Shove something dangerous under their forehead/face and tell them "it will have no effect.."on the rest of their body and quality of life (like finding a mate or a job). In Texas and many other states, what CHK is doing would be considered "rustling"-not of livestock but of the largest purchase and ownership of private property for most people. Am I making a valid and fair comparison of abuses just now? If not, set me straight. If so, look out you might be next, especially if you happen to be the unfortunate people living on the other side of the street from "pipeline alley" (or nearby streets) who received nothing--not even a letter notifying them about the pipelines just a few yards away--but will likely suffer the same "damages" and loss as the people with easements. Which raises a third (living nearby)and fourth(renters who tend to be poorer and immigrants in general--again in general) group of "victims" of abuse. So instead of asking who has it worse, it should be who has it the worst? There are other victims that I won't get into now.
Post a Comment