On Tuesday night the Frisco city council authorized the use of Emminent Domain as a last resort in acquiring the last plot of land for the new stadium and surrounding complex. Apparantly the city has been negotiating with this one landowner for several months and he has proven to be a bit of a pain in the ol' rear end. Several times a price was agreed upon but the guy would just back out and raise the price again. The city is hoping to continue negotiations and only go the Emminent Domain route if they absolutely have to. As a citizen of Frisco I lament the usage of this "special governmental power" for a stadium. As a Burn fan, however, I'm glad to know that the future of the stadium is pretty darn secure at this point. Here's to the future!
I prefer to think of this as Manifest Destiny. They better start emanating their domain quickly - ground breaking was supposed to begin before Nov 23rd.
Eminant Domain is a threat, and I doubt it will be more in this case. Frisco wants the Burn, and this guy owns the land wants every penney he can get. So Frisco says "We will pay X, take it or leave it, and if you leave it, we will get the land assesed at 1/2 X, and take it from you." That is assuming that the legal doctrine of Eminant Domain, where you actually have to pay for the land you take, is even used. From 1982 to 2000, the kleptocracy just took the land, and did not pay the owner.
The problem in this case Scipio is that eminant domain is intended for land that will contribute to the public good. Traditionally it has been used to acquire land for infrastructure uses, i.e. roads, bridges, utility easements, etc. In the last decade or so municipalities have increasingly used ED to acquire land for purposes that fall outside that definition. As a landowner I worry about my rights as it pertains to this.
Frisco's use of Emminent Domain in this situation seems reasonable. The stadium complex won't be used by only another private owner (HSG and the Burn), but will also be used by public interests ( Frisco ISD athletics and by local youth soccer teams). One prime time news magazine show recently ran an interesting story on a suburb in Ohio where Emminent Domain was being abused. In this situation, the city was seizing inexpensive, but well-maintained, homes of lower middle-class families so that a developer could build expensive condominiums on the land and generate increased property tax revenues for the city. Thank goodness such ED abuse has yet to hit Texas to this degree.
VW, It seems reasonable, but when you look deeper you realize it really isn't. With roads, bridges and utility easements, the land in question is THE only land possible for that particular use. In other words, say I want to expand a road that is one of the few East-West routes through the city from two lanes to four lanes. One or more of the property owners along the right of way of that road are refusing to sell or are holding out for more money. The usage of ED in this particular situation is warranted. The city can't simply find another piece of land to expand that road, it HAS to be that land. The Frisco ISD has the option of putting a second football stadium on one of several pieces of property that they already own. This is a case of a city taking rights away from a private property owner so that a few real estate developers, a professional sports team, and the city can make money. Will there be ancillary benefits to the citizens of Frisco? Sure, but that isn't what ED was created for.
So... what beer do you plan to bring to the groundbreaking? Surely you plan to be there, to pour a libation and soften the soil for the first shovel? Lone Star, then what?
lol this is funny. nearly this whole country was taken under the principle of eminent domain against the residents, by physical force i might add, and we are crying about our rights because one "poor" landowner who is trying to squeeze extra dollars out of the city is getting run? LOL
I'm not worried about one poor landowner, actually he sounds like quite the a-hole. I'm worried about the increasing usage of ED and flippant way this city, and others around here, are throwing it around. Slowly but surely it is becoming easier and easier for people to swallow this kind of crap. Read the end of VW's post, how long until that kind of stuff is acceptable?
i hate to get this thread off-topic because i'm really glad for the general underlying news, however, i'm simply saying that what you are expressing so much shock over is quite commonplace throughout the history of this country. ED didn't just start yesterday. It's been used for 100's of years now, and it was used much more brazenly and viciously than it is now. at least this guy will get paid, and probably ABOVE the market value of the property, despite what people here believe to be the case. anyway, thats my last word on that. congrats on the stadium. you guys (dallas fans) deserve better than what you have now.
If this guy holding things up means ONE MORE game at Dragon, I'm gonna drive up there, knock the guy out and wheel him out in a wheel barrow. We're not talking the Redwood National Forest here - its a flat patch of prairie field with knee high grass.
One, Just because something has been done wrong in the past doesn't excuse it in the future. As a lawyer I'm surprised you don't understand that. Absolutely, ED has been misused before and will be again in the future. But I for one will continue to complain when it happens. I suppose the fact that people have been murdered and raped in the past should mean that we shouldn't be shocked or surprised when it happens again??? Northside, I believe they can begin construction without knowing the final outcome of this particular issue. This parcel is only 30 acres, a small portion of the total project. I think they wanted to wait until there was at least a plan of action before beginning any of the hardcore work, but now that the city has made this move they can begin....from what I've heard.
ED has been used for lots of stadiums. Just about everything in the 70s. Los Angeles did not have to locate Dodger Stadium in Chavez, but that is where O'Malley wanted it, presto, ED! ED is a threat, and one everyone should be aware of. It sounds to me like this guy is just trying to squeeze Frisoc, so Frisco will squeeze back. The money offered is the carrot, ED is the stick. It won't come to ED. Unless some enviornmentalist on a power trip declares it a wetland. In that case, the government takes it and never pays you.
Once again, doesn't make it right. Using ED as a threat and actually going in front of a judge with an ED case still accomplishes the same thing. A landowner is still stripped of his rights to some degree. I'll say it again, that's fine if the property is needed for a public works project. But it's wrong for a revenue producing private project.
My family lost 100+ acres this way and had to spend 150k to get 500k - instead of the millions that the land was worth. If we didn't go to court and drag it out for a couple of years, we would've gotten nothing. It is, however, much more difficult for cities to use it because of wider and more accessible media. While my bank account may have suffered, I think the abuses are harder to come by now-a-days.
First of all, it is obvious that there are far too many people with legal training on this thread. Let us hope that Kevin does not get involved. Here is my brief. First, consider the nature of the landowner. He will sell it, then he will not, then he will, but not now. It is clear that he is trying to get the most money for his land. That, of course, is his right. He does not have the right to pull the city on a string. Either he should sell, or not. Give us an answer, and we can go from there. the city should be able to expect a final answer, and the owner should expect a fair price for his land, which he is not using. Sedond, the city is trying to use the land for a public benefit. The stadium is to be the center peice of the city's Main Street revival progam. The shops and cafe's to be built around the stadium will benefit immensly, and bring tax revenue to Frisco. The hotel will also contribute to the city's coffers. Considering the land is unused, I think ED is justified. If he had uses the land, if would be more difficult. Third, as you have seen from the picture, there is already a hole, and, more importantly, the orange plastic fence around it. A fence! Adverse posession!
Uh, dude. Lamar is only in for $10MM. That's only 15%. Under your math, then, the other 85%, that's coming from the TIRZ via the City, County, and Frisco ISD, are under ED open season. Let the landholder pay the court costs over the litigation for his last 4.5 acres. Therefore, 25.5 acres (85%) are open to ED. This is a profit-grab on the part of the landowner. Something I would try to do myself. But I'm smart enough to know when to fold after upping my take 250% when I don't have a stand of trees or a 100-year-old family farm to hide behind as I claim "pain and suffering". This fvcker is going to bluff himself in to a 30% take over what he could cash in for today. He should take his 170% profit (he was not an original landownder) and CASH IN NOW. If I'm the Frisco BigWigs, I crush this chump asap. They're holding back on the ED thing because they know it will cause bad press. But they are almost to the point where the construction schedule is going to be affected, and that will be WORSE press. TexGator, if you're in contact with the "LandHOLDER", you might want to teach them how to play poker; i'll pitch in for the Kenny Rogers record..... "youve got know when to hold em" "know when to fold em" "know when to walk away" "and know when to run" "you never count your money" "while your sittin at the table" ........ =bs
Once again....these are all good points (well some of them anyway), but none of it matters. This is a clear abuse of governmental power and sets a bad precedent. If you wish to let your passion for the Burn and desire for a new stadium cloud your judgement, that's your right. I, however, live in this city, and am a landowner. I wish to know that my property rights are secure so that my family can live in Frisco for as long as we choose to. BTW, cafes and shops and stadiums are not what the legislators had in mind when the created ED. I know you are smart enough to realize this, so no need to respond. And as far as how much Lamar is in for, the city/county/ISD/HSG partnership is only in regards to the actual stadium and rec soccer fields. Have you seen the plans for this property?? Townhomes, apartments, shops, restaurants, etc. Who is going to own these properties and make revenue off them? Not the city....that's for sure. Yes, there will be a tax benefit to the city, and thats great, but right now the city needs to be focusing on luring corporations to move to Frisco and bring jobs with them. Our tax base is way too dependant on retail sales and entertainment $$$. How many of you live in Frisco and attend the city council meetings?? I have a much better understanding of this situation, and many others in this city. Trust me on this.
Actually, I'm hoping you post regularly on this topic. It's rare that I get inside info from someone who shares similar concerns and experiences. Thank you very much. It is greatly appreciated.
Don't worry, I'm here to stay. Despite my anger at the situation I'm thrilled that the stadium project will finally get started. Other then my obvious pleasure at having the Burn play their games right down the road from my house, the city desperately needs additional rec soccer fields for our exploding youth leagues. I'm a big supporter of this project, I just didn't want to see it go this way.
It really is ground-breaking planning relative to how MLS markets should be addressed (excepting, of course, for possible black eyes from resident/officials conflict). To insinuate MLS on multiple levels in a given market is an extremely insightful ploy. The inclusion of multiple concerns, political, public, business and other sectors - is imperative for long-term acceptance from communities. Gaining a foothold in future MLS markets is dependent upon the success realized in what may be considered the proper parent of other Frisco's. Hey, if you can't beat the other four majors by what the MLS and NASL has tried in the past, then build from the ground up. Include multiple fields for youth programs, school districts and general soccer support at a family level. Involve key City and institutional structures that solidify a strong tax base. Incorporate local business, whether it be office space or retail ties that will add support to the whole project for decades to come. Grow it from the inside-out so we can create passion from within the community by kids growing up around this amazing complex. If this can be done in the next several MLS markets, then it can only bode well for the game as a part of our communities and everyday life - with soccer as an accepted part of our recreational and sporting foundation. Other countries didn't have the obstacles we have, but we have what most other countries don't. Someone else can wave the American flag. I'm very excited at being a part of soccer history in the making - right here in North Texas. I just have to learn to keep from crossing my fingers all day. It's hard to type
What is the location of the land potentially subject to ED? Is it where the stadium and/or rec soccer fields will be? If so, I'd think the city would have a pretty good ED case, since, if necessary, the city could split the property into two parcels, with one a city/county "park" containing the rec soccer fields and stadium. However, if apartments or retail, etc, is planned for the land in question, then I agree that it would be unfortunate for the city to use ED to take the land.
As much as I want to see SSS's around the league, "ED" is horrible in any setting, including this one. I am completely against it. Life, liberty and property.
VW, for privacy and negotiation reasons the city hasn't publicly released who owns what parcels and what is planned to go where. From my understanding this land is NOT where the stadium is going to go, but where some of the rec fields and possibly some of the ancillary buildings are going to be. However, it really doesn't matter, ED shouldn't be used for this even if it was the spot where the stadium is planned to go. As I posted earlier the ISD owns plenty of land on which to put a stadium, no need to take someones for the "public good" of a high school football stadium.