Texas arresting people in bars for being drunk

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by jinx

[thread hijack]

Does SB 881 help us out at all?~snip

Let's see?

§ 204. Eminent domain for private business prohibited.
(a) Prohibition.--Except as set forth in subsection (b), the exercise by any condemnor of the power of eminent domain to take private property in order to use it for private enterprise is prohibited.

Well, that's pretty clear...... let's look at the exception in (b).

(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply if any of the following apply:
(1) The (I) THE condemnee consents to the use of the property for private enterprise;
OR (II) THE CONDEMNEE DOES NOT FILE OR DOES NOT PREVAIL ON PRELIMINARY OBJECTION FILED TO A DECLARATION OF TAKING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CONDEMNEE'S PROPERTY.(Emphasis theirs)

OK, they can if you don't care. Not prevail? If you object to the condemnation and they say tough shit, they can use it for commercial use? WTF!

(2) The property is taken by, to the extent the party has the power of eminent domain, transferred or leased to any of the following:
(i) A common carrier, public utility or railroad as defined in 66 Pa.C.S. § 102 (relating to definitions).
(ii) A private entity that occupies an incidental area within a public project, such as retail space, office space, restaurant and food service facility or similar private entity.

OK, they can for a quasi-public service like busses and if the business isn't a major part of the project. Hmmmmm.

(3) There is, on or associated with the property taken, a threat to public health or safety. This paragraph includes the following:
(i) Removal of a public nuisance.
(ii) Removal of a structure which is: (A) beyond repair; or (B) unfit for human habitation or use.

Oh, tricky. Legally, any violation of the building code is reason the revoke your occupancy permit, which makes it "unfit for human habitation". It usually doesn't go that far...but it could.

(4) The property taken is abandoned.
(5) The property taken meets the requirements of section 205 (relating to blight).
(6) The property taken is acquired by a condemnor pursuant to section 12.1 of the act of May 24, 1945 (P.L.991, No.385), known as the Urban Redevelopment Law.
(7) The property taken is acquired for the development of low-income and mixed-income housing projects pursuant to the act of May 28, 1937 (P.L.955, No.265), known as the Housing Authorities Law, or to be developed using financial incentives available for the development of low-income and mixed-income housing projects under:
(i) section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Public Law 99-514, 26 U.S.C. § 42);
(ii) the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-383, 88 Stat. 633);
(iii) the National Homeownership Trust Act (Public Law 101-625, 104 Stat. 4129); (III) THE CRANSTON-GONZALEZ NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACT (PUBLIC LAW 101-625, 42 U.S.C. § 12701 ET SEQ.);
(iv) 53 Pa.C.S. Ch. 60 (relating to optional affordable housing funding);
(v) the Brownfields for Housing and Redevelopment Assistance programs of the Department of Community and Economic Development;
(vi) the Homeownership Choice Program of the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency; and
(vii) any successor program to a program under this paragraph.
(8) The property taken is acquired pursuant to the act of June 25, 1999 (P.L.179, No.24), known as the Economic Development Eminent Domain Law in order to allow for the removal of blighted properties within the borders of a former military facility located in a county of the second class A.

I can understand they don't want the courts to knock this bill apart because of conflict with a previous law.

(9) The property is used or to be used for any road, street, highway, trafficway or for property to be acquired to provide access to a public thoroughfare for a property which would be otherwise inaccessible as the result of the use of eminent domain or for ingress, egress or parking of motor vehicles.

So they can take another property for WalMart and yours for a driveway.
The bottom line seems to be; they can't take your property for private business unless they want to. What a sham....what a shame.

[Griff]

On the upside, more people are pushing back. There is a big fight developing just North of us (NYS) where a gas pipeline is coming through. It isn't a big deal if your property is large enough to accomodate it, since natural gas pipelines are usually pretty safe. Unfortunately, the present route goes through one families' mature timber stand and anothers' small river bounded property which will become unsuitable for building. There has to be a better way to do this stuff. If they started by asking property owners if they'd consider hosting the line and base their route on willingness to participate, they'd possibly do better. They would rather use lawyers and government to push folks around though.