Fairfield State Park

[Abctx]

That would be the the ****tiest thing I've ever seen if they did that. Free rent for 50 years then they steal it out from under the land owner. I'd move to Oklahoma if Texas did that to them.

I’ll have to disagree. As long as the State is paying the asking price, this is the PERFECT case for “eminent domain”. A tract of land with a huge lake, millions of dollars worth of park facilities (paid for by taxpayers over the last 50 years, no less), and something that hundreds of thousands of Texans would make use of. Vistra no longer has any use for the property. The only potential for “suffering”, here, is some fat-cat developer out of Dallas, that’ll have to find another piece of property to cover with concrete.

Would this property be worth as much as it is, if TPWD hadn’t “beautified” it, over the last 50 years?? No.

How many folks will benefit if it goes to a private developer??

Vistra gets their asking price (which is higher than it would have been, if taxpayers hadn’t already sunk a ton of money in it, over the last half century). Taxpayers get to keep access to a beautiful state park. Wildlife benefits by not having McMansions built all over thousands of acres.

Win.
Win.
Win.

[Hoggslayer]

They wouldn't be "stealing" it from the land owner.
The land owner wants to sell it. Its listed on the market.
Fair Market Value is given with eminent domain so the landowner wouldn't be giving anything up.

The property hasn't sold yet so the state should swoop in to buy it so that it can be protected for future generations. If the sale goes to a developer, it will end up being an exclusive neighborhood for blue state refugees.

When a buyer (state of Texas or Joe Blow) buys a piece of property they enter into a negotiation with the seller. Buying it and dictating the "Fair market value" and basically telling the seller they don't get to negotiate squat, is Stealing it in my book.

A good friend of mine had a property taken from him through eminent domain for part of beltway 8. Nothing about that process was fair to him. He had to move his business and the move cost him everything he made on the property. They didn't even factor that into the screwing he got.

[Hoggslayer]

I’ll have to disagree. As long as the State is paying the asking price, this is the PERFECT case for “eminent domain”. A tract of land with a huge lake, millions of dollars worth of park facilities (paid for by taxpayers over the last 50 years, no less), and something that hundreds of thousands of Texans would make use of.

Would this property be worth as much as it is, if TPWD hadn’t “beautified” it, over the last 50 years?? No.

How many folks will benefit if it goes to a private developer??

Vista gets their asking price (which is higher than it would have been, if taxpayers hadn’t already sunk a ton of money in it, over the last half century). Taxpayers get to keep access to a beautiful state park. Wildlife benefits by not having McMansions built all over thousands of acres.

Win.
Win.
Win.

Yes, if they go in and pay asking price. If they try to get it cheaper through eminent domain that is underhanded.

[Abctx]

When a buyer (state of Texas or Joe Blow) buys a piece of property they enter into a negotiation with the seller. Buying it and dictating the "Fair market value" and basically telling the seller they don't get to negotiate squat, is Stealing it in my book.

A good friend of mine had a property taken from him through eminent domain for part of beltway 8. Nothing about that process was fair to him. He had to move his business and the move cost him everything he made on the property. They didn't even factor that into the screwing he got.

Well, in THIS case, a “fair market value” has already been established (what Vistra asked for, and what the developer was willing to pay).

Vistra no longer has a use for the property. It is essentially “abandoned”.

I’m not gonna say I LOVE eminent domain, but if a case can’t be made to use it HERE (a pre-existing park, with facilities paid for by taxpayers, that would be open to ANYONE), then I don’t see how eminent domain could ever be used...

[Abctx]

Yes, if they go in and pay asking price. If they try to get it cheaper through eminent domain that is underhanded.

I agree, COMPLETELY.

[Huntindad]

I’ll have to disagree. As long as the State is paying the asking price, this is the PERFECT case for “eminent domain”.

if the state is paying asking price... why is eminent domain even in the conversation ? at that point it is just a purchase ...correct ?

[Abctx]

if the state is paying asking price... why is eminent domain even in the conversation ? at that point it is just a purchase ...correct ?

Right now, the developer in Dallas has “dibs” (the State didn’t know, apparently, a few months ago, that they had the money to buy it, so the developer got there first). If he doesn’t back out on the deal, he’s going to get it. The only way for the State to get it, now, is for him to drop out, or to “eminent domain” it (which would knock him out, and allow the State to buy it).

[Huntindad]

Which is...in my opinion abuse of power.

[Wellborn Papa]

Contact Ted Hollingsworth (ted.hollingsworth%20@tpwd.state.tx.us). He is in charge of all state park land acquisitions.

[Abctx]

Which is...in my opinion abuse of power.

“ There are three elements of eminent domain under Texas law: (1) The actor must be the state or a private entity authorized to condemn; (2) the property must be taken for public use; and (3) the landowner must receive adequate compensation for the condemned property.”

I don’t think you’d be able to name a single large reservoir in the State of Texas, that wasn’t built using eminent domain (seeing as how almost all of our lakes are man-made). I don’t like it when they do that, in order to build a water supply for some city 100 plus miles away. I get it. Most folks don’t want to move or give up property, so that the State can use their property for something else. I don’t like it when it’s used so that some private pipeline can get from A to B a little cheaper, or some developer can build a stadium or development for private profit, etc.

OTOH, this is LITERALLY already a public park, the current owners don’t want the land, and the taxpayers of this state have already spent MILLIONS building facilities on this property.

It would legally meet all the criteria laid out in State law, so hardly an “abuse of power”. Other than the developer who has plans to cover it with expensive homes, I’m not sure who else would feel “abused”, here, providing that the State would pay the asking price to the current owner (and perhaps reimburse the developer (current potential buyer)for the time that has been wasted trying to work this deal).

The best case scenario would be if the developer just backed out, the State pays the asking price, and outdoorsmen/families continue to have a nice place to fish and camp.

[Killer]

I sent an email to Ted Hollingsworth. Thanks for the info

[EarleyBird]

That was a great place to take girls at night when I was growing up.

[tvc184]

They do need to do away with it. If a person doesn't want to sell shouldn't be forced to. Fair market price is total BS. A person should be able to get whatever they want or can for their land IF they want to sell it. The BS like the bullet train is a prime example. All it does is fatten some worthless politicians & his buddy developer's pockets,

Then there would be no roads, no airports, no railroads, no parks, no……

[Capt.Brown]

Then there would be no roads, no airports, no railroads, no parks, no……

I don’t like it either, but you’re right, it’s needed or there would be zero infrastructure.

[jdg13]

Roads and drainage are one thing. Long linear projects are next to impossible to get done unless you buy someone out. Eminent domain, as BS as it is in many cases, is necessary in those cases. Using it to buy a park that you've leased for 50 years and somehow never thought could be sold is just poor planning by the state. No different than being on a deer lease and then complaining when the owner sells and you get kicked off.