Monday, September 23, 2019


Montoya is taking the lead on this and more information is available on his blog.  My point is as I deal with mind numbing headaches while trying to finish a project is to build on Montoya's post.

After the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier for cities to condemn private property to then be given over to private companies, Texas along with many other states rebuffed the Supreme Court and amended their constitutions to make it very difficult for private companies to force people to sell their property.  The Supreme Court case was  Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)

We begin with Article I, § 29 which makes violation of any part of  the Texas Bill of Rights void.

Sec. 29. BILL OF RIGHTS EXCEPTED FROM POWERS OF GOVERNMENT AND INVIOLATE. To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this "Bill of Rights" is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.


Sec. 17. TAKING PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE; SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES; CONTROL OF PRIVILEGES AND FRANCHISES. (a) No person's property shall be taken, damaged, or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person, and only if the taking, damage, or destruction is for:
(1) the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property, notwithstanding an incidental use, by:
(A) the State, a political subdivision of the State, or the public at large; or
(B) an entity granted the power of eminent domain under law; or
(2) the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property.
(b) In this section, "public use" does not include the taking of property under Subsection (a) of this section for transfer to a private entity for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues.
(c) On or after January 1, 2010, the legislature may enact a general, local, or special law granting the power of eminent domain to an entity only on a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each house.
(d) When a person's property is taken under Subsection (a) of this section, except for the use of the State, compensation as described by Subsection (a) shall be first made, or secured by a deposit of money; and no irrevocable or uncontrollable grant of special privileges or immunities shall be made; but all privileges and franchises granted by the Legislature, or created under its authority, shall be subject to the control thereof.
Sec. 33. PUBLIC ACCESS TO AND USE OF PUBLIC BEACHES. (a) In this section, "public beach" means a state-owned beach bordering on the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico, extending from mean low tide to the landward boundary of state-owned submerged land, and any larger area extending from the line of mean low tide to the line of vegetation bordering on the Gulf of Mexico to which the public has acquired a right of use or easement to or over the area by prescription or dedication or has established and retained a right by virtue of continuous right in the public under Texas common law.
(b) The public, individually and collectively, has an unrestricted right to use and a right of ingress to and egress from a public beach. The right granted by this subsection is dedicated as a permanent easement in favor of the public.
(c) The legislature may enact laws to protect the right of the public to access and use a public beach and to protect the public beach easement from interference and encroachments.
(d) This section does not create a private right of enforcement.
As to (d), while no private right of enforcement, Article I, § 29, allows for a court to declare void any action by the county in violation of § 33.
If a private advocacy group comes in to protect the people of Boca Chica city, Space X can find itself in years of litigation, thereby delaying its progress.
It is clear to me Space X either did not check the law before it tried to strong arm these residents, or they are confident the fascist legal system will insure the merging of the courts and private concerns regardless of our constitutional guarantees.

No comments: