Cedar Park and eminent domain on Lake Travis (Austin, Howe: real estate, loan)

[hoffdano]

News 8 Austin | 24 Hour Local News | LOCAL NEWS

Very disturbing action by the city of Cedar Park...

[Schnaiy]

Why is it disturbing to you for thousands of resident households to have continuing supply of water???

An "easement" is a legal term which simply gives utility companies, neighborhood golf course, DOT etc the right to "access" across the land - in this case to access the waterway. It is a common practice for easements to be granted - one only needs to read a Deed of Title. This is an extraordinary situation, as usually when the Land Title Deed is created any easements are written and will transfer each time the property is sold - they are enduring. However, this shouldn't be made into a big issue - because it just makes sense to take action to ensure there is an uninterrupted supply of water for all households.

The "uptake barge" is only going to be in temporary use due to the low lake level. Easements endure because there may be a need again in the future. Do you think a single resident should deny an easement which benefits the many? At the back of our old property for instance, there was a 15ft easement - it allowed the utility company access to the pipeline. All our neighbors had this easement - necessary maintenance etc. Land with an easement can't have a permanent structure erected. It usually doesn't have a negative impact on the homeowner; building code prohibits building anything within 15ft of the rear anyway. I don't know how much of the land is being requested for the easement, but I'm sure it's not much. If it does change the market value of the property - then the homeowner should be compensated. Perhaps some of the real estate agents on this forum can weigh in on this aspect? In New Zealand, I was compensated when the Department of Transportation wanted to widen the highway which affected my property (I had 3.25 acres). It was determined by an independent registered valuer. I really couldn't say "no" to DOT they have certain powers when it's in the public interest - but at least I was compensated $10k for the strip of land I was permanently losing. But I am digressing, as this thread's issue is about imposing "an easement" on the propertyowner and not a "permanent procurement or acquisition of land" BUT IT IS BEING DONE IN THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST.

[Jennibc]

As much as I abhor eminent domain abuse, I don't think this falls under that heading. I'd be more concerned if the city was taking away land to build a mall.

[chickenfry]

as usual there is way more to this story. these folk purchased this waterfront to build their dream home. they spent years working to afford the property and the money to build their house. they spent several years walking the property and designing the house that would be totally oriented around the view/waterfront. they build an expensive boat dock. now the city of cedar park takes their property, requiring the removal of the boat dock and greatly diminishing the value of the home by virtue of having a barge now being the focus of their view. yes cp is only floating a barge there while the lake is low, but in the future that barge will turn into a permanent facility. these folk offered to allow an easement for FREE. but cp didn't want that. they want the property. what is the compensation? $40K! Is that just compensation? I think not. we bought our waterfront in 1991 for $100K. the apprasial district now values it for taxing purposes at $450K. Our tax/month is now more than our loan payment/month.
seems to me that this "taking" may be for the public good, but the government owns these folk fair market value. that would still be less than the amount it is worth to this family based on it's personal value and certainly expontentially more than $40K!

[loves2read]

isn't "fair market value" what all the manuvering in Austin was trying to avoid paying when the eminent domain legislation was considered and voted on...

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by Schnaiy

Why is it disturbing to you for thousands of resident households to have continuing supply of water???

An "easement" is a legal term which simply gives utility companies, neighborhood golf course, DOT etc the right to "access" across the land - in this case to access the waterway. It is a common practice for easements to be granted - one only needs to read a Deed of Title. This is an extraordinary situation, as usually when the Land Title Deed is created any easements are written and will transfer each time the property is sold - they are enduring. However, this shouldn't be made into a big issue - because it just makes sense to take action to ensure there is an uninterrupted supply of water for all households.

The "uptake barge" is only going to be in temporary use due to the low lake level. Easements endure because there may be a need again in the future. Do you think a single resident should deny an easement which benefits the many? At the back of our old property for instance, there was a 15ft easement - it allowed the utility company access to the pipeline. All our neighbors had this easement - necessary maintenance etc. Land with an easement can't have a permanent structure erected. It usually doesn't have a negative impact on the homeowner; building code prohibits building anything within 15ft of the rear anyway. I don't know how much of the land is being requested for the easement, but I'm sure it's not much. If it does change the market value of the property - then the homeowner should be compensated. Perhaps some of the real estate agents on this forum can weigh in on this aspect? In New Zealand, I was compensated when the Department of Transportation wanted to widen the highway which affected my property (I had 3.25 acres). It was determined by an independent registered valuer. I really couldn't say "no" to DOT they have certain powers when it's in the public interest - but at least I was compensated $10k for the strip of land I was permanently losing. But I am digressing, as this thread's issue is about imposing "an easement" on the propertyowner and not a "permanent procurement or acquisition of land" BUT IT IS BEING DONE IN THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST.

Cedar Park is asking (!) for much more than what a citizen might typically call an easement. We all understand why municipal bodies might need 10 ft to provide drainage, or a sidewalk. But acquiring waterfront land and putting a barge and potentially pipes in front of a home is a different story. Dropping lake or not what they are doing will significantly degrade the value of the homeowner's waterfront property.

Cedar Park should probably purchase a strip of land that allows them to do what they need for a long term.

[Schnaiy]

Chickenfry, your facts you stated...on the one hand you say an easement was offered by the homeowner for free and then you're saying it was rejected by the City. Whereas, the news report I watched last night said the City wanted "an easement" (and it's very generous to offer $40k of the taxpayers money for an easement - the City needs to provide water).

It is possible that the news report have it wrong about the temporary uptake barge. I don't see how a permanent facility could be built on an easement (as you're suggesting). Chickenfry what is your source of information? After all, the uptake barge is only needed at this time when the lake is so low - recorded levels show this didn't occur more than a handful of times in the past 100 years.

A suggestion has also been made by Hoffdano that the City should purchase some land elsewhere - however, taxpayer money has already been spent obviously surveying to determine the best placement for a temporary uptake water barge (feasibility studies/surveys are expensive). Further expense to conduct another study - and quite frankly the delay and extra expense, would mean thousands of residents could find themselves without water and also an increase in property taxes! When it comes to matters of the public interest, I don't think you can fault the City for the action they are taking now. We are talking about one homeowner being affected. We all want this drought to be over, and city planners probably should have had a plan in place for this situation - who knows how many years it has been that they have been working on this? I have experience with town planning, when a water reservoir was needed for the city I was living in. It was at least 10 years of studies, making offers to homeowners - who quite frankly were greedy and it was going to cost the City millions to buy the land they needed. In the end, the City was able to negotiate access across private owned residential land so it could construct a water reservoir on Council owned land.

Bottom line - It's a matter of what's in the public's interest. I certainly don't want an increase in property taxes to finance unnecessary extra studies and land purchases when there is a viable low cost solution which only inconveniences one household who are being compensated.

[chickenfry]

the land owner was willing to let the city use his lot to tether and access the barge. they want sole ownership. so call it an easement but in this case the easement means the landowner forfeits the property.
again, this isn't an "inconvenience" as you suggest. it is a "taking". he deserves fair market value not $40K.

[hoffdano]

Schnaiy - I am not so willing to concede that the public's long term interest is well served. Sure they need water. Has Cedar Park exhausted all avenues that didn't involve taking someone's land? Paying 42K is still taking it. The citizens of Cedar Park should be on alert that their city is willing to do this.

The owner's willingness to grant temporary access is generous. The city should have accepted it - and spent additional time for a better long term solution after this drought ends.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

Schnaiy - I am not so willing to concede that the public's long term interest is well served. Sure they need water. Has Cedar Park exhausted all avenues that didn't involve taking someone's land? Paying 42K is still taking it. The citizens of Cedar Park should be on alert that their city is willing to do this.

The owner's willingness to grant temporary access is generous. The city should have accepted it - and spent additional time for a better long term solution after this drought ends.

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.