December 2016 – InfoHive

TREND. Courts v. the Lege. Eminent Domain. High Speed Rail.

The competing timelines:

Will the Texas Legislature prohibit eminent domain for high speed rail before the May 29th Sine Die?
Will the July 3rd Harris County trial on the issue have the final word?

The brewing issues:

Does the high speed rail project have eminent domain authority under Texas statutes?
If so, how should land owners and pre-condemantion access to the land work?
- Sound familiar? It should, its the same issue that land owners in West Texas raised with the Trans-Pecos…

3 Points. Eminent Domain. Legislative Priority.

What entity lists eminent domain as a legislative priority? Empower Texas

What 3 points do they point to as requiring eminent domain reform:

Private gain from eminent domain– whether it be private entities using eminent domain authority or local officials benefitting developers
Public Use should be roads, water lines or electricity, & not high speed rail developlment
Amoritization is just as bad as eminent domain.
- What is amoritization? Changing zoning rules to deprive property…

Why the chant to use eminent domain against Trump Tower? What you Need to Know:

NYC is footing the bill. Securing the 58 story building is estimated at $35 million from now until 1/20/2017
Donald Trump loves eminent domain.
NY has expansive eminent domain laws.
There are safety reasons to use eminent domain. The security at Trump Tower for hinder traffic, impeding commerce & draining tax payer dollars.

Washington Post | New York should seize Trump Tower

Civil Asset Forfeiture Lege Trend. State #17 Passes Reform.

The 17th state to reform civil asset forfeiture laws: Ohio

What does Ohio’s bill do?

Limits the crimes for which civil asset forfeiture is permissible
Switches the burden of proof to the state and away from the Defendant
Prevents civil asset forefeiture for amounts below $15,000

The opposition:

law enforcement organizations
Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association

Reason.com | Ohio Legislature Passes Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform

Legal Quagmire: City Wants to use Eminent Domain to Obtain a Utility

The City: Claremont, California

The eminent domain acquisition: The local water utility which the city thinks is charging residents too much

The legal drama: 21 day trial. The Court, in a tentative decision the City didn’t offer facts to back up its right to eminent domain. Final decision anyday.

Lexology | O’Melveny & Meyers | City of Claremont’s Water System Acquisition Attempt Rejected

City Uses Eminent Domain Against Private Company. Electric Poles. 3 Bits Informed Intel.

The city: Hastings, Nebraksa

The target property to acquire: Utility poles owned by Windstream

The public purpose: Acquiring a secure the means of distributing electricity to the citizens of Hastings without relying on a 3rd party for repair

Hastings Tribune | Council approves eminent domain for utility pole ownership

Legal Trend. No Eminent Domain for Private Companies. 3 Statements from a Judge.

The project denied eminent domain: An oil pipeline through rural Ohio

What were the judge’s objections?

The company pointed to a $237.3 Million economic boon and the court said economic development is not a reason for eminent domain
The pipeline provides no direct benefit or service to Ohioans.
The common carrier statute that applies to pipelines like this is an unconstitutional infringement on the property rights of Ohioans

Legal Trends in the Rust Belt meet Legislative Trends in the…

A train proposal leads lawmaker to end eminent domain for all private companies.

The train route: The Great Lakes Basin Railroad

The homestate for legislators wanting to stop eminent domain for the train: Wisconsin

The method to stop the train: End eminent domain for all private entities

Northern Public Radio | Beloit-Area State Lawmakers Try To Stop A Train By Changing State Law