State Rep. Beverly Woolley spoke to members of the Houston Property Rights Association in a February meeting about her efforts to get an eminent domain bill passed by the legislature. She and other House members sponsored a bill in the 80th Legislature that would essentially make the taking of property by eminent domain a public process, subject to authorization by a governing body. The bill was vetoed by the governor, who said its compensation provision and litigation process would be too costly to taxpayers for public projects which require land takings. According to Rep. Woolley the bill will be reintroduced in the next legislative session in 2009, despite the veto last year.

It was the Supreme Court's Kelo decision in 2005 that sent chills down the spines of property rights advocates. In New London, Connecticut, the city declared that a development project qualified as a "public use" as defined in the U.S. Constitution's taking clause. It then formed a private corporation under the control of the city to handle the development. The project was an attempt by the city to encourage economic development around a planned Pfizer research center in a neighborhood on the outskirts of the city. The development plan included a hotel and convention center, a state park, an office and retail center, and new residences.

Some homeowners sold their property to the city while others did not wish to sell. So the city condemned the homes of the holdouts under eminent domain. These holdouts sued the city, arguing that it had misused its eminent domain powers.

The case went to the Supreme Court, where the plaintiffs also argued that it was not constitutional for the government to take private property from one individual or corporation, and give to another corporation. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, said that the city's project served a public purpose since it benefited the community economically, and did not violate the constitutional taking clause.

Almost three years after the decision the development in New London has not made much progress. In November of 2007 it was reported that homes had been bulldozed, but the project was stalled because the developer was having difficulty getting financing.

Reaction to the Supreme Court's decision was largely negative, as opinion polls showed many property owners do not want to have their land seized for private development. In response to the public's unfavorable reaction to the decision, 42 state legislatures have enacted some kind of reform legislation limiting the power of eminent domain for the purpose of economic development. In Texas, the 79th Legislature enacted SB 7 which was a bill prohibiting governmental or private entities from using eminent domain to take private property if the taking confers a private benefit, or is for economic development purposes.

In an effort to further strengthen and define property rights, make the system more transparent and establish checks and balances, Rep. Woolley and other Texas House members introduced HB 2006 in May of 2007. The bill amends the Government Code to define "public use" and sets out procedures to initiate an eminent domain proceeding. The bill amends the Property Code in order to:

a) require an entity with eminent domain authority to make a bona fide offer to a property owner in order to acquire the property;

b) change the price at which the owner can buy back the property if the public use is canceled, from the fair market value at the time of cancellation to the price the government paid the owner;

c)revise requirements relating to the disclosure and production of information during condemnation proceedings:

d)revise provisions relating to the determination of fair market value;

e) require governmental entities to provide relocation advisory services, moving expenses and relocation costs, in accordance with federal law as a cost of acquiring real property through condemnation.

Rep. Woolley says that she met and worked with various stakeholders on this bill so that eminent domain is better defined. She said that property protection has been eroding at the state level at a time when more and more government entities are being allowed eminent domain powers. "I don't know how many now have the power of eminent domain," she says. The legislature, she adds, does not have a total on all the entities, large and small, that have the authority to take property.

The biggest opposition to the house bill she sponsored comes from state and local agencies, such as TxDOT, she says, who say that the revisions would cost a billion dollars more for road projects. Rep. Woolley says that cost figures claimed by opponents need to be justified before the next session of the legislature, because the bill is too important to property rights to dilute the revisions.