It's even more irritating when it's admitted that this water line is only supposed to be a 20-year solution. Needs beyond 20 years aren't addressed, meaning that Dallas can virtually take what they want at that time, since the precedence will be established and the land devalued by the existing line.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN: but either out in the boonies or well on the way to the boonies

That may, in a sense, be begging the question. Bear in mind that there's an awful lot of land that is arguably in between - and that one person will call salable urban land that hasn't been fully developed yet and that another will call the boonies. Basically that's a debate that's been happening between buyers, sellers, tax men and local service provision agencies since forever.

I'm sure it'll come as no surprise that when local agencies try to assert eminent domain, they try to do so at a pricing/development "sweet spot". On the one hand, they don't want to spend the money before they have to or spend it before they're quite certain which way development (or at least the other infrastructure) will go. On the other hand, they want to get it early enough in the development process (or just before development begins) that the "fair market value" for the land is as low as possible.

All of which makes sense, of course, but all of which also makes for an almost unworldly game of poker between the agency and the property owner.

Perhaps the better way of assessing it is according to how developed the agency thinks the area will be within (1) the time it takes to get eminent domain and (2) within the service life of the proposed project. The property owner hopes to pat himself on the back for having gotten in ahead of the development/price curve while the agency is doing its level best to slip in just ahead of the development/price curve.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
I wonder what the dispute was over.

Here's the basics as of 2016. The case here doesn't resolve the dispute; it's more about timeliness of an action.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-...e-court/1737905.html

I would point out that a 150-foot wide easement covering over 11 acres on a corner of the developed property could actually create one hell of a lot of headaches (you can't really build or plant there, for example) and could potentially suck a lot of the value out of the property. From the sound of it, I'm willing to believe that $17,000 an acre for developed property in a major metropolitan area is contemptibly low - farmland in the Valley will sell for that.

OTOH, the owner got his own water district to counter this. OTOOH, this is a longstanding practice in Texas, and water district law in the state is specifically designed to make this an option.

For those wondering about different jurisdictions, this water district that the City of Dallas cut a deal with (not the district being run by the people Dallas is settling with) apparently crosses multiple county lines. It must be a sprawling district, though, to be headquartered in Tarrant County and be located southeast of Dallas.

All of which is swept from my mind in a flash by one thing - the insistence of the City that it's the landowner's fault that the City has spent millions in litigating this.

Thanks for that. Interesting.

This ranch is not “developed property in a major metropolitan area,” but out either in the boomies or well on the way to the boonies, between Canton and Corsicana.

No telling what raw land values are, but not the same as developed property in a metro area.

Il Cattivo, thanks for posting.

I'm in oil & gas and can tell you with 100% certainty that the water district does not need a 150' permanent easement for a 7' pipeline. They'll need 150' temporarily for the construction easement, but after construction it should revert back to somewhere between 7' (areas with multiple parallel utilities) and 50' (rural single pipeline) for permanent easement. They must have plans for multiple pipelines if they're going for that wide of permanent easement.

Multiple and/or larger. Municipalities hate to pay twice for what the planning department considers one hole.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN: but either out in the boonies or well on the way to the boonies

That may, in a sense, be begging the question. Bear in mind that there's an awful lot of land that is arguably in between - and that one person will call salable urban land that hasn't been fully developed yet and that another will call the boonies. Basically that's a debate that's been happening between buyers, sellers, tax men and local service provision agencies since forever.

I'm sure it'll come as no surprise that when local agencies try to assert eminent domain, they try to do so at a pricing/development "sweet spot". On the one hand, they don't want to spend the money before they have to or spend it before they're quite certain which way development (or at least the other infrastructure) will go. On the other hand, they want to get it early enough in the development process (or just before development begins) that the "fair market value" for the land is as low as possible.

All of which makes sense, of course, but all of which also makes for an almost unworldly game of poker between the agency and the property owner.

Perhaps the better way of assessing it is according to how developed the agency thinks the area will be within (1) the time it takes to get eminent domain and (2) within the service life of the proposed project. The property owner hopes to pat himself on the back for having gotten in ahead of the development/price curve while the agency is doing its level best to slip in just ahead of the development/price curve.

All they want is water pipeline from where the water is to where they want it as efficiently as possible.

Henderson County is not metro any time soon, I think. I found one parcel, ~1500 acres asking $15 million, ~$10,000/acre. No insight into location in the county, road frontage, slopes, minerals, or other value determinants that make these emminent domain arguments so entertaining.

A 150 foot easement sounds like a land grab to me. As if as someone has some commercial real estate in mind for the future to develop.

That woman is the reason people armor bulldozers and wreak havoc on city hall.

City hall isn't 100% to blame, but the attorneys that screw land owners with the justification that it's "lawful" while getting paid to find a way to do it.

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
A 150 foot easement sounds like a land grab to me. As if as someone has some commercial real estate in mind for the future to develop.

That woman is the reason people armor bulldozers and wreak havoc on city hall.

City hall isn't 100% to blame, but the attorneys that screw land owners with the justification that it's "lawful" while getting paid to find a way to do it.

That's a lot of nothing between the two points, so it's not about future development. And that is probably a 150' easement. The reason I say that is there was proposed or actually existing easements like that on a water line to San Antonio.

In Texas, there is a right of free capture of water, in the absence of some regulatory authority. So, if somebody offers to buy water to export, they can do it. So that law I referenced from ~2000 allowed for formation of water districts to exert some control in their area. With a water district, water exports still may occur, but it can be regulated by permit to take X acre-feet/year.

Anyway, (S)an (A)ntonio (W)ater (S)ystem acquired water from the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer, to their southeast ~50 miles beeline, as they were capped on Edwards Aquifer water (the aquifer under them). To that end, they acquired (bought? condemned?) an easement 150' wide-since this number came up in the story, I'll presume that's a standard.

That 150' easement isn't for additional pipelines (although unless otherwise specified, I guess it could), but it is for drilling wells along the route. Once the governmental entity has the easement, I gather it becomes their extraterritorial jurisdiction, and therefore under THEIR laws. Then, the entity itself files permits to mine water, solidifying control.

Interesting footnote is that (again) San Antonio has lots of canyon land suitable for reservoirs. Only they don't want it in their back yard, and the landowners tend to be wealthy, not unlike the gentleman in the story.

An easement is a right to use the property of another, limited to the uses defined in the grant of easement.

The right to have a pipeline probably would not include the right to drill wells within the easement, unless expressly granted.

The owner can use the property in any way which does not interfere with the rights of the easement holder.

No big surprise. That is how Dallas operates.

You know they said it’s just a water line they were going to dig up bury it and refill the dirt. He would still have his land......Bullshit, he would no longer have use of that land and the amount of land taken for easement. He would no longer be able to use, improve or build on the land as he wished.

quote:

The right to have a pipeline probably would not include the right to drill wells within the easement, unless expressly granted.

Well, in this case the Tarrant Water District was proposing to write the easement that Bennett was to grant it. About the only requirement on them was that the use be "reasonable", but that's given the purposes for the easement that Tarrant could freely choose for itself. I don't argue that Tarrant would've drilled along the right of way, but in a one-sided transaction like the one Tarrant proposed a little paranoia only makes sense.

Funny, what I heard from that meeting is that if you're poor or average we're taking your land and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. If you're rich enough to fight us, you're a jackwad for fighting for your rights.

That entire council needs to go.

Well this council meeting was over a year ago. Is the Council still there?

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

The right to have a pipeline probably would not include the right to drill wells within the easement, unless expressly granted.

Well, in this case the Tarrant Water District was proposing to write the easement that Bennett was to grant it. About the only requirement on them was that the use be "reasonable", but that's given the purposes for the easement that Tarrant could freely choose for itself. I don't argue that Tarrant would've drilled along the right of way, but in a one-sided transaction like the one Tarrant proposed a little paranoia only makes sense.

It's not a one-sided transaction as both parties have to agree to the terms of the easement or you end up in court with an eminent domain case.

Don't forget in the video both the c*nt and the councilman stated they would likely lose in court. Non-standard things like drilling wells on a water pipeline connecting a lake to DFW and asking for a permanent easement 3x wider than normal make it harder to win as it would not look like the water district negotiated in good faith.

In my oil & gas experience, landowners have become much more sophisticated (or at least have access to competent counsel) and sneaking in multiple line rights and fiber optic cable as part of an easement are a thing of the past.

quote:

Originally posted by newtoSig765:


Dead people just lay there, harming nobody.

I like dead people better than government people.

Harming nobody? I’m not so sure about that. They do tend to vote democrat.

^^^^^^
Here in Illinois? Yes, on frequent occasion that is true.

Dallas, too, I'm guessing. At least in Chicago they have the courtesy to put a good front on their corruption, where this Stella Dallas does it in the open, and with the camcorder aimed right at her!

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
An easement is a right to use the property of another, limited to the uses defined in the grant of easement.

The right to have a pipeline probably would not include the right to drill wells within the easement, unless expressly granted.

The owner can use the property in any way which does not interfere with the rights of the easement holder.

I couldn't say what is covered within the T&C of the easements or the water region laws. I'd even seen a plat with some details alluding to that possibility on that pipeline I referenced. I doubt it would occur on any kind of scale, simply because there is only so much water available.

But if you think I meant an ETJ or pipeline would preclude surface use by the property owner, I never implied nor stated such, let alone covered surface usage. Everybody knows about pasturing livestock or row-crop farming occurs above pipeline easements.

quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar:
When people who can't afford to fight us come to us and say "please don't take my property" we just take because they're ordinary people.

WOOOOOOOOW!!!! Unbelievable that she actually said that out loud.

Yeah, that was incredible.

One hopes 'ordinary people' remember that line, next election.

I've come to the conclusion that there's simply not enough rope in the world to fully correct such issues.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus Dei:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
An easement is a right to use the property of another, limited to the uses defined in the grant of easement.

The right to have a pipeline probably would not include the right to drill wells within the easement, unless expressly granted.

The owner can use the property in any way which does not interfere with the rights of the easement holder.

I couldn't say what is covered within the T&C of the easements or the water region laws. I'd even seen a plat with some details alluding to that possibility on that pipeline I referenced. I doubt it would occur on any kind of scale, simply because there is only so much water available.

But if you think I meant an ETJ or pipeline would preclude surface use by the property owner, I never implied nor stated such, let alone covered surface usage. Everybody knows about pasturing livestock or row-crop farming occurs above pipeline easements.

I merely set out the essential basics of easement law. I would never assume that “everybody knows” as I have ample experience to the contrary.

I’m not sure this EJT has any application over a mere easement.