Suggest a bill to be debated on
Describe the Bill – Be as detailed as possible. Please include the bill number and author if possible. Visit the Texas Legislature Online to search bills.

Your Voice in the Legislative Process

Submit a Bill
Relating to limitations on the use of eminent domain authority. Read & Follow the Bill
Interact with this bill

Post vote to

the debate: HB188
5 Comments   |   Post a Comment     
the mood on this bill

Comments from Ralph Sheffield

House bill 188 clarifies the government's use of eminent domain law to claim private property. It establishes that property may only be taken strictly for the benefit of the community. It details the explicit scenarios in which the government should not be allowed to use eminent domain to take private property. These situations are: when there will be private benefit for a private entity, if public use is only a pretext to private use/benefit, or for economic benefit (unless the benefit brings on secondary benefit in form of renewal to an area, etc. ). The importance of this bill comes from many years of misuse and misunderstanding of eminent domain. Private property rights for Texans must be respected by clarifying more than just "public" and "private" use. Laying out definite instances that property cannot be taken will create an much needed standard.

Contributor Comments
(Hays County) December 19, 2012, 5:10 pm report abuse
Love it
Backmic Update
(Travis County) February 14, 2011, 1:37 pm report abuse
Introduced and referred to committee on House Land and Resource Management (2/11/11)
( County) February 11, 2011, 7:10 am Thumbs Up report abuse
Great bill Mr. Vice Chairman
Economic Freedom
(Travis County) January 30, 2011, 6:02 pm Thumbs Up report abuse
Great bill. Congress, the Texas Legislature, and the courts have decided that a public purpose--like increased tax revenues-is sufficient for the government to take private property from land owners. But of course public purpose appears no where in either the United States constitutions--the actual term is"public use," which means something like a road, school, or city hall. HB 188 counters the legislative and judicial creation of public purpose and puts property rights back on the right track.
Ed Coet
(Bell County) January 25, 2011, 9:20 pm report abuse
I strongly support HB188. I hope another bill will be introduced that specifically addresses involuntary annexation by municipalities. No city or town should ever be allowed to involuntarily annex land. This is clearly “taxation without representation” because none of the elected parties deciding on the annexation were ever voted on by those being involuntarily annexed. The involuntarily annexed people do not get a vote and have no representation. Yet, they are being forced to pay taxes without representation. That is un-American. We fought a revolutionary war for that precise reason. Unless the city proves to the state that such annexation is imperative to the city’s growth and not for the benefit of private commercial enterprise, involuntary annexation should be against the law. Also, no property taxes could be imposed on the involuntarily annexed property owner until 100% of all city services are provided to the property owner, at city expense, and for a period of 10 years beyond that. This legislation is
13 (100%) 0 (0%)