Thread: Confiscated property

In 1990 the Texas Legislaturepassed a bill toauthorize the Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority toexercise eminent domain over any obstinate landowners who refused to sell their land for the, then proposed, Texas Rangers Stadium in Arlington, Texas. Never before had a Texas municipal authority been given the license to seize the property of a private citizen for the benefit of other private citizens.

Ultimately, the Authority seized 13 acres for the stadium complex. Guess which private citizenbenefited from that legislation? If you guessed George W. Bush, who was one of the Ranger managing partners, you're correct! When the Rangers were sold in 1998, Bush turned his relatively modest $606,302 investment into $14.9 million windfall - a 2,400% return in8 years. Then,Bushhad the audacity to run for governor on a platform of opposing the seizure ofprivate land for public use - I guess for his private use was OK.

How come the conservatives weren't outraged? How come no rich California conservative suggested turning his Crawford, Texasfarminto a hotel?

In the New London case, all the Supreme Court did was to rulethat the Fifth Amendment's "public purpose" includes projects broader than bridges or highways, e.g. economic development and/or baseball stadiums. As far as I know, the Court didn't endorse the project; they just ruled, as is theirrole under the Constitution, that the Fifth Amendment didn't prohibit it. Incidentally, the Connecticut Supreme Court also ruled in favor of the New London project.

Pesky third branch of government!