(1) comment Back to story

Richard Moore
Richard Moore

I tend to agree with this statement:
"This has nothing to do with public access, but a lot to do with a land grab of property and return of the power to the Texas General Land Office, lost in the Severance decision."

Further, I do see where changes such as this to the statute will change the basic tenants of the court decision:
1) The effects of a single storm should not change property lines, only a long-term change in geology should do this, and;
2) The case did not question the state's authority for eminent domain - it only dictates that the land owner should be fairly compensated.

The Land Office and the City need to get a grip - if changes such as the bill purports are made, this will just end up in Court again. Our (near win-less vs. the Fed) AG will spend untold of our tax dollars in court needlessly.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.