Burnt Orange Report

Update on the Communist Terror

By Jim Dallas

Somewhat serendipitously, I have before me a very recently decided case from the Third Court of Appeals (Whittington v. City of Austin, Texas Cause No. 03-03-00496-CV, decided June 8, 2005) which suggests that Texas law is already somewhat less deferential to eminent domain seizures than the standard applied by the Supreme Court last week in Kelo v. City of New London.

Again - the federal standard is a bare-minimum. In Whittington, the Third Court of Appeals reversed an inverse condemnation of some property in downtown Austin on the grounds that the City of Austin failed to demonstrate why it needed to take the property (according to the opinion, the City later claimed that the land would be used for Austin Energy and a parking garage).

The two cases are not directly comparable, but is useful for illustrating the point I asserted earlier - that Texas, and for that matter, any state, can take independent steps to protect property owners.

While it still doesn't protect property rights per se, current Texas law does at least provide a check on "corrupt" public officials by permitting a public vote. In Freeport, petitions are circulating regarding the city's attempts to condemn property the city wants to turn into a marina.

That's great. Of course, though, I worry that an anti-Kelo backlash in Texas will inspire an unwise reaction. After all, if Rush Limbaugh is beating the drums of war...

Update on the Update: Kuff that the up-to-datest up-diddly-date!