Issue Position: Property Rights

Issue Position

Once acquired, property ownership should be recognized as an unalienable right that cannot be taken by government for failure to pay any type of tax.

In Texas -- The TEA Party Caucus Advisory Committee recommends, and I agree with the following, "Current Texas law defies our state constitution by allowing the government to take property and use it for any purpose. This must change. Here's how:

The "buy-back" provision in the 82nd Texas Legislature's SB 18 did not fix the problems with eminent domain. Instead, the opposite is true because government entities can easily achieve the criteria to keep the seized property without ever using it for the purpose specified in the condemnation proceedings; plus, they have ten years to meet the necessary criteria in order to keep the property.

The legislature should grant property owners the right to repurchase their property if the initial use of the property taken from them is not the public use for which the property was acquired.

Regulatory Takings -- amend the Texas Real Private Property Rights Preservation Act to cover regulatory takings of property by cities. This will ensure compensation for property owners for loss of value due to new regulations (zoning) on land use by cities, which were exempted by the 1995 Act.

Public Use vs. Public Purpose -- Under the US and Texas Constitutions, eminent domain can only be exercised for public use -- not public purpose, but most grants of eminent domain authority by the Texas Legislature allow takings for public purposes. All references in Texas statutes should be changed back to the constitutional definition of public use.

Property Rights & the Texas Courts -- The legislature should shift burden of proof in all property rights cases from landowner to condemnor. The constitutional right to both own and use property should be restored through a constitutional amendment. This is necessary because current case law, held by the Texas Supreme Court, shockingly says, "Property owners do not acquire a constitutionally protected vested right in property uses." City of University Park v. Benners, (1972). This means Texans have title to the dirt or water or other minerals that make up the land they own, but do not have the right to use them without permission from the state. In a state where people are supposed to live more free than in any other state, in Texas, we have a long way to go in genuine private property rights protections."

Source