The next time you hear a Texas political leader brag about the state’s dedication to property rights, small government and a business-friendly environment, remember four words: Fairfield Lake State Park.
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission’s vote June 10 to use eminent domain to take the parkland from the developer who just purchased it was a heavy-handed use of a significant state power that’s meant to help plan for the future, not fix decades of mistakes and inattention to detail. The developer, Todd Interests of Dallas, will be compensated but will almost certainly never realize the profits it could have made by building a luxury gated community on the land it rightfully bought.
In retrospect, it was probably inevitable that either the Legislature or the commission would find some way to save the park. It’s likely that the public strongly supports the move, and the state had made significant investments on the property, which is between Dallas and Houston.
But let’s be clear what happened here. Texas enjoyed a gift of the parkland for five decades, with a power company leasing it to the state but taking no compensation. No one in government could look past the end of his or her nose to a day when that arrangement might end. And when it did, none could manage to come up with the company’s reasonable asking price of $110.5 million for the parkland and surrounding acreage in 2022.
In stepped Shawn Todd and his company. When the threat to the park was clear, suddenly the lethargy ended and there was no principle lawmakers and state officials weren’t willing to abandon to keep the land.
Eminent domain is a vital tool for government. Sometimes, the greater good has to supersede individual property rights. The state should use it as infrequently and cautiously as possible. It should almost always be for future projects, not fixing past mistakes.
It shouldn’t be forgotten, either, that there was squeamishness about the move in the Legislature. Rep. Angelia Orr, R-Itasca, introduced a bill that would have asserted the state’s right to use the power. A House committee altered that, but the bill never advanced to the full House.
Orr’s chief of staff told us recently that the goal was to clarify the existing power of the parks commission to use eminent domain. But it’s funny — several experts who testified in favor of the bill in the House Culture, Recreation and Tourism Committee in March lamented that the eminent domain portion of the bill was removed. If the power was in place, why the worry?
Orr wasn’t done, bringing a bill to create a novel process by which the parks commission would have to approve changes to water rights in the area, a power it does not have in any other case. That passed the House but not the Senate.
All that said, the state will almost certainly win any legal fight Todd poses. The question will be how much the developer gets. If he litigates the matter, he’ll surely get what he paid for the land, which he has said was more than $100 million, and maybe a smidge more for his troubles. But it won’t approach the profits he would have made.
You don’t have to feel sorry for a wealthy developer. And it’s good for so many Texans that a popular fishing and hiking destination won’t be lost. But you should pause at the state sitting on its hands for half a century, watching a transaction unfold and then stepping in to destroy well-developed business plans.
The park will remain, and thankfully, the current commission understands the need to invest more in acquiring land and developing recreation opportunities for a booming state. The Legislature created a special fund to make it happen.
But consider the cost of such extended malfeasance and the blunt exercise of power to fix it. Because future potential corporate donors and developers certainly will.
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
