Anti-light rail amendment withdrawn

Eminent domain given go-ahead

Steve Hawley, May 26, 09.

An amendment in the Texas House that would have prevented METRO from using eminent domain to acquire property for the University Line has been withdrawn, Charles Kuffner reports in Off The Kuff.

The amendment, reported by the Houston Chronicle on Sunday, would have primarily affected the University Line, but according to a METRO spokesman, it could have jeopardized the other lines as well by reducing ridership estimates.

The Chronicle notes:

The new restrictions, if enacted, would limit the agency’s eminent domain authority, needed to buy property for the rail lines, if a route differs from the 2003 referendum that authorized the light rail program.

The restrictions mirror the rhetoric of rail critics, who say the location of the controversial University Line down Richmond and Westpark doesn’t conform to the referendum.

However, Christof Spieler notes in Intermodality:

This amendment applies only to Houston, not to Dallas or Austin or San Antonio or El Paso. DART has never held a vote on the route of any of its light rail lines, and it has been able to use eminent domain to build them. And it applies only to transit. We don’t hold votes on freeway expansion, road widenings, or flood control projects. Under this bill, METRO, in order to be able to use eminent domain, would need to hold a referendum on rail or [Bus Rapid Transit] line, describing the specific route of that line. [No] other entity in the state is under that requirement. And this is a retroactive requirement — there was no rule in 2003 that METRO’s referendum [had] to specifically describe routes.

The amendment was added by Rep. Joe Pickett of El Paso, who, according to the Chronicle, “said [rail critics] convinced him that the transit agency hadn’t complied with the referendum. He said he hadn’t talked with the agency, though, before adding the language.” According to Kuffner, Rep. Ellen Cohen of Houston talked Pickett into removing the language.

With the legislative session almost over, the Chronicle says the amendment faced an “uphill battle” in the first place, but Spieler warns, “this kind of thing can pop up unexpectedly in the late days of a session.”

Comments

Robert Muhammad said:

Christof is right. This is exactly what will continue to happen unless the people who believe in transportation choice stand up and say “enough is enough.” The roadbuilding royalty and asphalt aristocracy continue to look after their special interest. It is about time that we stop being politically passive and intellectually isolated.

We need to make these rather technical terms and concepts understandable to the average Joe or Jane. Show them how the financial looting and political harassment of Metro is effecting their quality of life.

For example, did you know that Metro has 9,971 bus stops but only 2,192 shelters? With the $308 million Metro paid for new streets, sewers, sidewalks and 1700 trees, we could have built 70,000 bus shelters! Why should so many of the 300,000 daily Metro riders, our fellow citizens, stand out in the rain, heat and cold?

Please don’t blame this on rail planning and construction. That is a canard of the highest magnitude. The $2.7 billion fund transfer from mass transit tax revenue to “general mobility” since 1988 is the culprit. Metro isn’t running a deficit the cities and county are and plugging it with Metro’s money.

Rep. Pickett of El Paso is meddling in our region’s transportation affairs. The question is: who put him up to it? Why didn’t he speak to Metro BEFORE filing this amendment? What should we who desire transportation choice do about it so that it doesn’t happen again next session?

Posted on May 26, 09 at 4:17 pm

Page 1 of 1 pages