 | Constitutional Amendments - Summary | |
| Election Day: Tuesday, November 3, 2009 | ||
Proposition No. 11
Heritage Alliance Recommendation: FOR
How the proposition will appear on the ballot:
The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature's authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity.
Summary:
Proposition 11, if passed, would amend Texas Constitution, Art. 1, sec. 17 to restrict the taking of property to instances in which the taking, damage, or destruction was necessary for the possession, occupation, and enjoyment of the property by a common carrier, by an entity providing utility services, by the public at large, or by the state or one of its subdivisions. Eminent domain proceedings on blighted property would have to be done on individual parcels of property, and not collectively on large swaths of land.
Heritage Alliance Recommendation:
FOR
Conservative Principles which are the basis for this recommendation:
The U.S. Constitution (Fifth Amendment) prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation, commonly referred to as the "takings clause." Texas Constitution, Art. 1, sec. 17 prohibits a person's property from being taken, damaged, or destroyed without consent for public use without adequate compensation. In the Kelo decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that each state may define the right to private property.
In 2005, the 79th Legislature (2nd Called Session) enacted Senate Bill 7, which prohibits governmental or private entities from using eminent domain to take private property if the taking: (1) confers a private benefit on a particular private party through the use of the property; (2) is for a public use that merely is a pretext to confer a private benefit on a particular private party; or (3) is for economic development purposes, unless economic development is a secondary purpose that results from municipal community development or municipal urban renewal activities to eliminate an existing affirmative harm on society from slum or blighted areas.
While some say the language of this proposed constitutional amendment does not go far enough to protect private property, it does represent measurable forward progress in defining and strengthening private property rights by further restricting the taking of private property through the eminent domain process.