Google
 
Web rhymeswithright.mu.nu

January 19, 2006

Judge Orders Eminent Domain Rip-Off -- Takes 105 Acres For $1.00

This must not stand! If you thought the Kelo decision was obscene, wait until you read this.

And it is happening literally just down the road from me -- I pass the property on a daily basis during the last leg of my drive home from work.

Man awarded $1 for 105 acres Port condemned

For years, Seabrook residents have said building the Bayport container facility north of town would hurt property values.

They might be surprised at how much one man got for his tract of land - $1 for 105 acres.

Pasadena land owner Glenn Seureau, II, thinks he was robbed of his by the Port of Houston Authority. He plans to continue an uphill battle with the Port until he is paid fair market value for the land.

One civil court judge, on the other hand, seems to think $1 is compensation enough for Seureau's land, located just north of Seabrook.

Seureau fought for nearly three years to protect his property, in his family for more than 150 years, from the Port's power of eminent domain, only to lose his case in May of last year in the court of Harris County Civil Court Judge Lynn Bradshaw-Hull.

The judge ruled that having paid Seureau $1, the Port now owns the fee simple title to the property. Seureau was also ordered to give back the Port's previous payment of more than $1.9 million at 5.75 percent interest and pay the Port's court costs at the same interest rate.

Seureau has appealed the ruling, and he and his attorneys are currently in negotiations with the Port.

Port officials declined to comment on the case, but confirmed that they are working with Seureau to reach an agreement.

The conflict began in September 2002, when a special commission held a hearing regarding the Port's request to condemn Seureau's land. Seureau did not attend the hearing, and the commission ordered the Port to pay him approximately $1.9 million for the property.

The Port deposited the funds into the registry of the court, taking constructive possession of the land, but Seureau refused to take the money or relinquish the title to the property.

"I didn't think (the Port) had the right to take the property," he said, adding that the Port's need for the land seems to be based on private rather than public interests.

The Port plans to build a portion of the Houston Cruise Terminal on the property.

Seureau also believes $1.9 million is less than the market value for the land, which he had planned to develop with multi-family residences.

He was later advised by an attorney that he did not have the right to contest eminent domain and withdrew the $1.9 million to pay for further appeals regarding the market value of his land.

The Port brought Seureau to Bradshaw-Hull's court on May 16, 2005 to obtain the fee simple title that Seureau had withheld until that point.

On May 17, the judge excluded the testimony of both Seureau and his only expert witness, Louis Smith, saying that neither man could provide evidence that was relevant or reliable regarding the market value of Seureau's land.

According to court documents, the judge's final ruling was based on a lack of evidence to support Seureau's argument.

Seureau also made a motion to exclude the testimony of one of the Port's expert witnesses, Matthew Deal. The court denied that motion.

Seureau, who lives in his 180-year-old family home next door to the recently condemned property, said that although he is not familiar with the judge's intentions, he sees Bradshaw-Hull's ruling as a "punishment" for trying to challenge the Port.

"I was forced to settle for less than market value," he said.

Bradshaw-Hull declined to comment on the case since it is on appeal.

So let's get this straight -- the judge allowed no testimony on the value of the land -- and then awarded an absurdly low value because there was no evidence in support of the land's value. Never mind that we know that the land was considered to be worth at least $1.9 million by the special commission. And she added insult to injury by ordering the victim of her obscene ruling to pay back all money he received with interest, plus legal fees to the publicly-owned Port -- which means he is paying the Port for the privilege of having his land stolen.

Notice, please, that this story is covered only by the local "tossed on the lawn" paper, not any of the major media like the Chronicle or the local television stations, despite teh outrageous nature of this ruling. They all made money hand over fist during the bond election a few years ago, as the Port spent tax money selling this expansion to the voters -- and it still runs propaganda ads about how great it is for the community. I guess they don't want to see that cash cow dry up.

Oh, and by the way, Judge Bradshaw-Hull (email here) is running for re-election on the GOP ballot.

But Bradshaw-Hull has competition from Linda Storey in the race for judge of Harris County Court at Law 3. Assuming she is qualified, I will likely give my endorsement her way.

Let us hope that this decision does not stand -- and that this judge is off the bench..

TRACKBACK TO: Stop the ACLU, Publius Rendevous, Caos Blog, Right Wing Nation, Adam's Blog, Uncooperative Blogger, Linkfest Haven, Bullwinkle Blog, TMH Bacon Bits, Stuck On Stupid, third world country, Point Five, Conservative Cat, Samantha Burns, imagine kitty, Wizbang, Basil's Blog, Blogs For Bush



» Searchlight Crusade links with: More Eminent Domain Thievery
» Diggers Realm links with: Man's 105 Acres Stolen Using Eminent Domain For $1, Ordered To Pay $1.9 Million
» BizzyBlog.com links with: Kelo Update: I Don’t Want to Believe This
» Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys.. links with: H&I fires 22 Jan 06



|| Greg, 09:05 PM || Permalink || Comments (7) || Comments || TrackBacks (4) ||

Trackback Information for Judge Orders Eminent Domain Rip-Off -- Takes 105 Acres For $1.00

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/146571
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Judge Orders Eminent Domain Rip-Off -- Takes 105 Acres For $1.00'.

» Searchlight Crusade links with: More Eminent Domain Thievery, on January 20, 2006, 09:41 AM
Excerpt: Rhymes with Right notes an abuse of eminent domail even more abusive than Kelo vs. New London. A man in his Texas city was forced to sell a 105 acre parcel to the Port of Ho...

» Diggers Realm links with: Man's 105 Acres Stolen Using Eminent Domain For $1, Ordered To Pay $1.9 Million, on January 20, 2006, 04:40 PM
Excerpt: The eminent domain abuse continues, this time in Houston. Glenn Seureau had his property taken from him via having it "condemned" so that the Houston port could build the Houston Cruise Terminal. He initially was given $1.9 million for the...

» BizzyBlog.com links with: Kelo Update: I Don’t Want to Believe This, on January 21, 2006, 11:26 AM
Excerpt: State entity acquires 105 acres for $1? You would think that has to be one of those “there has to be more to this” stories. But I don’t see how — yet (HT Rhymes with Right, who lives in the area): For years, Seabrook reside...

» Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys.. links with: H&I fires 22 Jan 06, on January 22, 2006, 08:21 AM
Excerpt: Open post for those with something to share. New, complete posts come in below. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite. You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place... Code Pink,...

Comments on Judge Orders Eminent Domain Rip-Off -- Takes 105 Acres For $1.00

The guy took the $1.9M and then went *back* on the deal?? Not real clear on HOW or WHY he got that money and they want it back...

If he took $1.9M and wants more, he was a bad negotiator... If he signed a contract, he's pretty much screwed isn't he??

|| Posted by TexasFred, January 19, 2006 09:51 PM ||

This is obscene. Does the judge own a house? I'm thinking of putting up a hotel...

|| Posted by Ed Minchau, January 19, 2006 09:52 PM ||

Not wuite what happened -- he was awarded the $1.9 million when the land was taken, but contested the valuation (which he claimed was low).

His major asset was the land -- so he used the money awarded him in the original proceeding to take teh next appeallate step.

The result was that he had it all taken from him.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, January 19, 2006 09:57 PM ||

Yeah, I just re-read the thing and saw that.. His use of that money may be his downfall... They may have made an *undervalued* offer but I don't think he had any right to USE the money if he had no intention of accepting the offer...

I think he has screwed himself... I hate it too, but he may be in very deep poop...

|| Posted by TexasFred, January 19, 2006 10:04 PM ||

It can be argued that, since the $1.9 million was the state's offer, he had no reason to expect to lose any of it, and every reason to expect it was the very minimum he would ever receive. Therefore, though withdrawing part of the money could constitute acceptance.

Furthermore, he's battling the state, which is backed by virtually unlimited resources -- as I put it, "the full faith and credit of the taxpayer's wallet." That puts a greater strain on his ability to litigate, so a reasonable person could see why he had to tap into the initial award.

But as someone on the LLP list pointed out (I apologize, his name escapes me), "what smacks of tyranny" is what this twit of a judge did. Excluding Seureur's and his witness' testimony, yet not excluding testimony from a state witness? I hope this bias can be sufficient grounds for an appeal.

|| Posted by Perry Eidelbus, January 20, 2006 11:51 AM ||

Eminent Domain law is filled with all kinds of conflicts which make it easier for backdoor deals. Payoff of judges for one. Local politicians fill their pockets by getting kickbacks from relatives doing odd jobs on the deal. (property inspection, demolition subcontracting, etc...)

I've seen it first hand near my home.

It is such a scam.

|| Posted by prying1, January 21, 2006 08:58 AM ||

Looks like this judge just lost her spot on the bench.

Given how close it was (Linda Storey won 50.5% to 49.5%), this decision may very well have outraged enough people to cost her the election.

|| Posted by Tim, March 8, 2006 08:42 AM ||
Post a comment

Remember personal info?


 

 






» Searchlight Crusade links with: More Eminent Domain Thievery
» Diggers Realm links with: Man's 105 Acres Stolen Using Eminent Domain For $1, Ordered To Pay $1.9 Million
» BizzyBlog.com links with: Kelo Update: I Don’t Want to Believe This
» Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys.. links with: H&I fires 22 Jan 06
AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg





Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards
Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2013 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2012 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2011 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2010 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2009 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Posts by Category

Announcements (posts: 13)
Blogging (posts: 187)
Border Issues & Immigration (posts: 421)
deferred (posts: 4)
Education (posts: 685)
Entertainment & Sports (posts: 483)
Guns & Gun Control (posts: 65)
History (posts: 329)
Humor (posts: 88)
Israel/Middle East (posts: 44)
Medical News (posts: 54)
Military (posts: 273)
News (posts: 1570)
Paid Advertising (posts: 234)
Personal (posts: 108)
Politics (posts: 5261)
Race & Racism (posts: 281)
Religion (posts: 819)
Terrorism (posts: 884)
Texas GOP Platform Reform Project (posts: 4)
The Courts (posts: 310)
Watcher's Council (posts: 482)
World Affairs (posts: 345)

Archives

January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
December 0000



MuNuviana



Licensing

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Powered By

Powered by
Movable Type 2.64
AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg

Administrative Stuff

Email Me
Syndicate this site (XML)

Advertising Disclosure

adpolicy.gif

About Me

NAME: Greg
AGE: 50-ish
SEX: Male
MARITAL STATUS: Married
OCCUPATION: Social Studies Teacher
LOCATION: Seabrook, TX
DISCLAIMER: All posts reflect my views alone, and not the view of my wife, my dogs, my employer, or anyone else. All comments reflect the view of the commenter, and permitting a comment to remain on this site in no way indicates my support for the ideas expressed in the comment.

Search This Site


Support This Site



Recent Entries

Who Is Regan Theiler And Why Was She Allowed To Spend Public Funds On A Sole Source Contract For Her Part-Time Employer?
Not My Idea Of A Stimulating Evening
About Trump's Liberty University Speech
Do Not Place The Secessionist "Texas Independence" Measure On The 2016 Republican Primary Ballot
Conservatives Vs. Liberal On Those Engaged In Violent Political Activity
Tom Mechler Makes His Case Against Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Jared Woodfill Makes His Case For Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Questions About Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Reject The Call To Move 2016 Republican Party Of Texas Convention
It Is Too Bad That Political Parties Cannot Reject Voters Who Seek To Join, Stop Would-Be Candidates Who Want To Run

Blogroll


Watchers Council
  • Ask Marion
  • Bookworm Room
  • The Colossus of Rhodey
  • The Glittering Eye
  • GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD
  • The Independent Sentinel
  • JoshuaPundit
  • Liberty's Spirit
  • New Zeal
  • Nice Deb
  • The Noisy Room
  • The Razor
  • Rhymes With Right
  • The Right Planet
  • Simply Jews
  • Virginia Right!
  • Watcher Of Weasels

  • Political & Religious Blogs