|
|
|
|
Add to Favorites
|
 Propositions Index |
Previous Proposition
Proposition 11The ballot will read: The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature’s authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity.Background: The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from taking away a person’s private property for public use without giving the property owner fair compensation. The authority of government to claim private property for public benefit is known as the power of eminent domain. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that using eminent domain power for economic development can be considered a public purpose even it results in profit to specific private individuals. In response to this ruling, Texas joined a number of other states in passing laws limiting the use of eminent domain when private benefit would result. Proposition 11 would add restrictions on the use of eminent domain to the Texas Constitution, which would prohibit the Legislature from weakening these restrictions without voter approval. The amendment would prohibit the government from using eminent domain power to take property from one individual or company and then transfer that property to another private individual or company for purposes of economic development or increasing tax revenues. It would also prohibit the Legislature from giving the power of eminent domain to additional entities, such as management districts, unless such a proposal passed the Legislature by at least a two-thirds vote. (It currently takes only a simple majority vote). For: Proposition 11 would add key protections against abuses of the power of eminent domain by stating the legitimate purposes for eminent domain in the Constitution. Passage of this amendment would also have the symbolic value as a strong message from the Legislature and voters that eminent domain must be used for very limited purposes, only when it is really needed. This proposed amendment would require the government to keep any property it takes through eminent domain in its possession, to occupy the property, and to use the property for some productive purpose. It would prohibit the government from taking property without a clearly stated purpose. It would also prohibit property from being taken by government and then given to a private entity. The proposed amendment will make it more difficult for the Legislature to grant eminent domain power to additional entities.Against: The language of Proposition 11 is confusing, and this confusion will likely lead to expensive lawsuits over how eminent domain power can or cannot be used. This confusion could have a serious affect on local governments, which often have complicated agreements for acquired property that would not be clearly covered under the language of the proposed amendment. While the Legislature can easily change a law to correct wording problems as they are discovered, changing the Constitution requires voter approval each time. The amendment could be interpreted to prohibit the government from leasing property to private companies if the property was acquired through eminent domain power. For example, the city could be prohibited from leasing airport space for restaurants, hangars, and other necessary private enterprises, if the land for the airport was acquired through eminent domain powers. The Legislature has already passed a law providing protections against abuse of eminent domain authority. There is no need to add these protections into the Constitution because they are already covered by this law. The courts are still trying to figure out exactly what situations are covered by the law, and until they do, we should not put this language in the Constitution. that would occur if this proposition passes, CLICK HERE. Note that Propositions 4 and 11 were passed together in a single bill. The language for Proposition 11 is contained in "Article 1" of the bill. Words to be added to the Constitution will be underlined. Words to be removed, if any, will be [ For a more detailed analysis of this proposition For the full House Research Organization report |