© dmagazine.comMonty Bennett stands in an old culvert segment that lies on his Lazy W ranch.
Last week the Dallas City Council met to discuss their current agenda. Item #11 involved an eminent domain case where the city of Dallas was attempting to take the land from a property owner. The council has been asked to settle a case out of court with the land owner.
Ms. Sandy Greyson, District 12 (nonpartisan), is furious that the city cannot simply take this man's land. She tells Mayor Michael S. Rawlings it isn't fair to the city that this man has enough money to defend his property in court. She even admits that "ordinary people" who "cannot afford to fight the city of Dallas" end up losing their property, which makes it easier for the city.
She's dead serious, and continues to say "he's fought us for years and has cost Dallas tax payers millions of dollars."
It gets worse, "I'm not blaming anyone that we're settling this case," she says "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."
Let that sink in a moment.
In her opinion, the local government is a victim because it cannot afford the court cost required to force a citizen to give up land he does not want to sell.
Watch the video:
Ultimately the city is forced to settle and change their construction plans to move around his property.
UPDATE: The land owner's name is Monty Bennett, a Dallas businessman who owns East Texas Ranch LP. He has filed a lawsuit against Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD) under Civil Action No. 2014C-0144.
The land was originally purchased by Bennett's grandparents in 1955. Bennett does not want the pipeline to damage his family land or interfere with the wildlife refuge on it. He attempted to speak directly with the TRWD board, but they refused to see him. In order to protect his land, Bennett has constructed a cemetery on his property. Under Texas Law 711.035 cemeteries are exempt from "taxation, seizure by creditors and eminent domain."
Bennett has the full support of Henderson County Commissioner Precinct 4 Ken Geeslin who is upset by the project's burden on his constituents. "First off, I am not in favor of eminent domain," Geeslin said in an interview with the Athens Review. "The government can come take property that may have been in a family for generations. I just can't see that being right."
Geeslin fears that the land owners who have agreed to easements on their property may not be fully aware of the project's size. "We are not talking about 18-inch pipes. These pipes are a minimum of 84 inches," said Geeslin. "Residents with waterfront property could end up with mud-front property at Lake Palestine and possibly Cedar Creek Lake. 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."
Reader Comments
What I can't abide is when imminent domain is used by government to make room for commercial enterprises, claiming that the economic benefit exceeds the interests of the property owners. This flies in the face of a free market, where commercial interests pay what it costs to buy land based on what the market will bear.
Eminent domain issues are remarkably common and get remarkably little coverage. I thought the public would rise up when there was a city in the Midwest several years ago that condemned a large swath of a poor neighborhood, took the land for whatever price they determined was fair, and then sold the land to a developer to build a shopping mall. There was a brief uproar and then things marched on. Big profits and small jobs are for the greater good, but not home ownership, apparently.
At least they weren't indigenous Americans, or they wouldn't have been paid at all. Don't think that all only happened back in the 18th century either - look at what we did in the 1960s to the Seneca to build Kinzua Dam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinzua_Dam...)
But fundamentally, it's taxpayers (plural) taking land (eminent domain) from a single taxpayer. How do you think all that land that lies under I-75, for example, was acquired? You don't really think that every single landowner was happy to sell it to the state highway department, do you?
In some cities (northeastern US, especially), entire neighborhoods disappeared for highway projects, but the odds of every homeowner agreeing to sell (without the principal of eminent domain being needed) are astronomical. Same for water and wastewater pipelines, electric power lines, dams, reservoirs, etc.
Hundreds of thousands of American taxpayers have been run off of their land for the common good by the use of eminent domain. Else major public works of any kind would be virtually impossible. Need a new city hall. Do you think the taxpayers should pay an exorbitant price for the land because the current owner knows he has them over a barrel? Not to worry - eminent domain will ensure that taxpayers pay what the property is worth, more or less, compared to similar properties on the open market...no windfall for landowners at taxpayer expense.
In theory. But only the hopelessly naive believe this how things actually work. You're telling me a small group of individuals, the council, can and should reduce a group of a million+ individuals into a signal unit, for whom the council can propose a one-size fits all solution for everything? This "greater good" idea is simply vague collectivist horseshit used to justify what amounts to theft.
Good thing dupes like you still believe in the legitimacy of democracy and government and crap like the "greater good". Otherwise cunts like this councilwoman would be out of business.
One world government with TPTB in control? No, thank you!
And it starts with emminent domain.
"In the end, we're settling because he'll probably win."
So she's admitting that Dallas has no legal claim on this man's property, but HE'S the bad guy.