Monty
Bennett owns the East Texas Ranch LP which has been in his family since 1955
when it was purchased by his grandparents. Tarrant Regional Water District
wanted to run huge pipes through his property and he did not want the family
land altered by the digging and wildlife affected by the 84-inch pipes. He sued
them under Civil Action No.2014C-0144.
It was
reported that Bennett tried to speak to the TRWD but “they refused to see him.”
To protect his land, Bennett did something that even a famous Roman tried to do
in order to avoid paying taxes to the Roman Empire, he buried a fly on his
property with pomp and circumstance. Bennett actually built a final resting
place on his property. Texas Law 711.035 exempts cemeteries from “taxation,
seizure by creditors and eminent domain.”
There is one
“public servant” in support of Bennett’s fight, Henderson County Commissioner
Precinct 4 Ken Geeslin, who does not like the idea of eminent domain. He is
quoted as saying to the Athens Review,
“First off, I am not in favor of eminent domain. The government can come take
property that may have been in a family for generations. I just can’t see that
being right.”
Non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) often make contracts with property owners in exchange for
grant money or reduced taxation. They are called “easements.” These NGOs are
distributing grants to landowners strapped for cash who often enter into them
in perpetuity, unable to do much to their land unless the NGO approves.
The property
owners who have agreed to the terms of the pipes running through their property
did not understand the size and the scope of the digging and the amount of mud excavated
in the process. Geeslin said, “I don’t understand why they have not looked for
alternative routes for the pipeline. They could possibly find a route that
would not affect so many people.”
As it
stands, the city was forced, after much litigation and expense in court to the
tune of millions in taxpayer dollars, to alter the plans and to move around
Bennett’s property. The Dallas City Council was asked to settle the case with
Bennett out of court.
Sandy
Greyson, District 12, was beside herself with indignation that she could not
take a rich man’s land who had enough money to fight them in perpetuity. She did
not believe that it was fair that Bennett had so much money and could fight
them in court when “ordinary people, who cannot afford to fight the city of
Dallas,” lose their property. It seemed outrageous to her that she could not take
his property too. She said, “He’s fought us for years and has cost Dallas
taxpayers millions of dollars.”
“I’m not blaming anyone that we’re settling
this case, but it’s just infuriating that if you’re rich enough, you can hold
the city hostage for years and get what you want. There’s something really
wrong with that,” she said. She did not see anything wrong with taking someone’s
property that the City Council did not own, it was just wrong because she could
not take everybody’s property.
As reported,
the government is a victim because it no longer wishes to spend money on court
costs or cannot afford to, in order to “force a citizen to give up land he does
not want to sell.” http://www.sott.net/article/352989-City-council-in-Texas-furious-they-cannot-just-take-mans-land-who-is-rich-enough-to-fight-them
We
understand the need for land in order to build highways, schools, hospitals,
and interstates but, when the government intercedes on behalf of commercial businesses,
claiming that the public good’s economic benefit exceeds the interests of the
property owners, is an entirely different issue. A business should pay for the land competitive
market prices if the land owner is interested in selling.
Confiscating
the land by condemning a poor neighborhood in order to build a shopping mall, a
hotel, a bike path running in front of a person’s house and through an old
beloved magnolia tree, cut down without permission, or a parking lot, is problematic
at best, particularly when the local government gets to decide what a fair
price for the land in question is.
The
councilwoman obviously did not have in mind “the greater good” claimed by
eminent domain for the people in her precinct. She just wanted landowners to
bend to the Council’s wishes sooner rather than later.
No comments:
Post a Comment