Cedar Park and eminent domain on Lake Travis (law school, compensation)

[Schnaiy]

Originally Posted by Austin97

The issue becomes one of jealousy. Stick it to the rich guy living on the lake. In this case he should be compensated for the loss of value of his property.

Here is site making a case that cedar park should be pulling from the simsboro aquifer not from lake travis.
Draining Lake Travis | Secret plans for a Deep Water Intake in Volente threatens the survival of Lake Travis and could cost Central Texas taxpayers millions.

Jealousy for whom? Surely you're not suggesting the City is going out of their way to target this waterfront property out of a motive of jealousy? If you're implying I'm jealous, think again! I have three properties of my own, one is on a waterfront street of Lake Travis.

It's just ridiculous to suggest it's an issue of jealousy for anyone! The real issue here is - there is a need for continuing water supply for all residents. The solution may not be the best outcome for the one affected waterfront resident - but they have legal remedies available to them if they are not happy with the compensation being offered by the City.

[orbius]

Oh no the rich guys view is slightly degraded. *Sob* the horror.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by orbius

Oh no the rich guys view is slightly degraded. *Sob* the horror.

It is no less wrong to do this to a "rich" guy than a poor guy. Because some think like Orbious however Cedar Park might find it easier to "take" from a "rich" guy because they might guess the public would be less sympathetic.

I think the land owner's offer was reasonable but for some reason the city didn't want to borrow access.

[Schnaiy]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

It is no less wrong to do this to a "rich" guy than a poor guy. Because some think like Orbious however Cedar Park might find it easier to "take" from a "rich" guy because they might guess the public would be less sympathetic.

I think the land owner's offer was reasonable but for some reason the city didn't want to borrow access.

Hoffdano, it was obvious sarcasm from Orbious.
I have to say though, it's interesting how vehemently you defend the right of the one (rich guy) over the right of the many (the general public)?

Also, as I recall the "Robin Hood" system for funding public education in Texas is based on taking from the more affluent communities and redistributing to the communities with less monies available to them for education. Based on the logic you've employed thus far, I'm sure you objected to that too, because you'd rather defend the rights of the rich over the rights of those in need.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by Schnaiy

Hoffdano, it was obvious sarcasm from Orbious.
I have to say though, it's interesting how vehemently you defend the right of the one (rich guy) over the right of the many (the general public)?

Also, as I recall the "Robin Hood" system for funding public education in Texas is based on taking from the more affluent communities and redistributing to the communities with less monies available to them for education. Based on the logic you've employed thus far, I'm sure you objected to that too, because you'd rather defend the rights of the rich over the rights of those in need.

Rich or poor, a man's property is his property and he should get a say and any resolution should be equitable to both sides.

Eminent domain never works out for the property owner in a fair and equitable manner.

[love roses]

I agree, there's enough undeveloped land where they could put a barge.

[TexasHorseLady]

What some folks seem to forget is that if they support something being done to someone else (out of jealousy or because he's "the rich guy" and that somehow means he doesn't have the same rights as others or whatever), they have just given up any right to complain when their own rights of whatever kind are violated.

Amazing how that keeps cropping up over and over again in these kinds of things - that person does things I don't approve of/want to do, or that person has money, or pick your prejudice, and thus it's okay to violate their civil rights. But let someone violate the civil rights of the person who has said its okay, or even good, to violate the rights of those they don't agree with, and it's an entirely different story and we're supposed to be outraged and defend their rights.

No, it doesn't work that way. The only reason any of us have civil rights is because all of us, together, defend the concept.

[Schnaiy]

Texas Horse Lady quote: What some folks seem to forget is that if they support something being done to someone else (out of jealousy or because he's "the rich guy" and that somehow means he doesn't have the same rights as others or whatever), they have just given up any right to complain when their own rights of whatever kind are violated.

Amazing how that keeps cropping up over and over again in these kinds of things - that person does things I don't approve of/want to do, or that person has money, or pick your prejudice, and thus it's okay to violate their civil rights. But let someone violate the civil rights of the person who has said its okay, or even good, to violate the rights of those they don't agree with, and it's an entirely different story and we're supposed to be outraged and defend their rights.

No, it doesn't work that way. The only reason any of us have civil rights is because all of us, together, defend the concept.

Hmmm I believe that is how women's rights and African-American rights were won in this country...by a united front of many, battling at great personal risk for a worthy cause. But let's not misconstrue the real situation here in this thread: it is about a single homeowner objecting to the City's action to ensure the continuing supply of water to residents because he doesn't want any part of his land used. This is not a question of civil rights of a group unless you're talking about the right of citizens who pay taxes to receive an uninterrupted supply of water??? But I don't think you are. Noone is taking away his right to the same legal recourse ANY citizen has if s/he isn't happy with the compensation being offered.

Also, it was mentioned there is undeveloped land along the waterfront of Lake Travis - isn't that more privately owned land? So, you're saying that those property owners have less rights than the guy who has developed his land? Also, do you know whether the location of any undeveloped land is suitable for the placement of the low level water uptake barge? I am sure the decision for the location was based on expert advice and not just an arbitrary decision - "hey let's pick on this rich guy"!. What a ridiculous notion.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by Schnaiy

Hoffdano, it was obvious sarcasm from Orbious.
I have to say though, it's interesting how vehemently you defend the right of the one (rich guy) over the right of the many (the general public)?

Also, as I recall the "Robin Hood" system for funding public education in Texas is based on taking from the more affluent communities and redistributing to the communities with less monies available to them for education. Based on the logic you've employed thus far, I'm sure you objected to that too, because you'd rather defend the rights of the rich over the rights of those in need.

I'm not defending the rich at all. I don't care if this guy is rich or not. Cedar Park is taking his land. It is easier to pick on a rich guy because chances are people will feel better about it. If the land in question had a mobile home on it with a single mother living in it - it would look like they were picking on someone powerless.

Cedar Park should have taken advantage of the landowner's generous offer. Then worked to meet their long term water needs.

As for Robin Hood - off topic - it is a flawed system with a worthy goal. Property-poor school districts have few choices to raise tax revenues. So it is reasonable for the state to address that need. Redistributing tax revenue is far different than eminent domain.

[Jennibc]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

I'm not defending the rich at all. I don't care if this guy is rich or not. Cedar Park is taking his land. It is easier to pick on a rich guy because chances are people will feel better about it. If the land in question had a mobile home on it with a single mother living in it - it would look like they were picking on someone powerless.

Cedar Park should have taken advantage of the landowner's generous offer. Then worked to meet their long term water needs.

As for Robin Hood - off topic - it is a flawed system with a worthy goal. Property-poor school districts have few choices to raise tax revenues. So it is reasonable for the state to address that need. Redistributing tax revenue is far different than eminent domain.

Well, I worked on a case up in Seattle where a poor immigrant family was getting screwed by Sound Transit when it took their land for a staging area. The immigrant homeowners and business owners were offered pennies on the dollar for their land while the ST was falling all over itself to give Bank of American and Washington Mutual hundreds of thousands of dollars for small strips of their parking lots. Our client asked for more money than than what the government offered and the agency, pissed off, decided instead of just needing 1/6th of their lot, it would condemn the entire parcel. We took them on pro bono after all this had happened. If they had been wealthy in the first place, it would have never gotten to that point. Ultimately, they were compensated better in the end (after having legal representation) but they still weren't given what would have been considered "market value".