Waltz Across Texas

Jesse Walker | September 24, 2007

Not all the opposition to the Trans-Texas Corridor is coming from paranoid nationalists. From a Time story on the project:

David Langford, an activist for the Texas Wildlife Association, is organizing farmers and ranchers whose land could be cut in half or condemned by the Trans-Texas Corridor. An early plan for central Texas showed a corridor passing near the homestead Langford's family settled in 1851. With the state's new "quick claim" ability -- granted under TTC legislation -- his family homestead could be gone in 90 days, he says, transferred to private investors operating the corridor. Though he would be compensated financially, he's still steamed. "I can't believe Rick Perry's grandfather would want his house and ranch taken and turned over to Paris Hilton's family to build a hotel on one of these roads," he says.

Opponents argue the roads may require the seizure of "more than half a million acres of private property." Gov. Rick Perry's "Trans Texas Corridor Fact Sheet" doesn't mention a total -- it gets vague whenever the interesting criticisms come up -- but it does claim that the project "will ultimately result in the purchase [sic] of less public land than would otherwise be needed to keep up with growth, and all the needed land will be purchased during one process, instead of on a piecemeal basis as we need to build out infrastructure one project at a time." Apart from the moral issues involved in taking private property, this runs up against the possibility that a process of "piecemeal" evolution is less likely to grab giant chunks of land that aren't actually "needed."

One thing that isn't clear to me, as a fellow who hasn't lived in Texas for years and hasn't been following this story closely: How much is the state planning to spend on the corridor, and how much is coming from private sources? Perry's factsheet says that "The first segment of the corridor...will require no tax dollars up front for construction while ensuring a $7.2 billion private investment in the corridor." The phrases "first" and "up front" imply that Texas taxpayers will be paying money down the road, but somehow a document that can cite the exact amount a private company will be spending doesn't say how much the state plans to kick in.

Comments

SIV|9.24.07 @ 10:56AM|#

With the state's new "quick claim" ability -- granted under TTC legislation -- his family homestead could be gone in 90 days, he says, transferred to private investors operating the corridor.

The State seizing private property for the benefit private investors?

Well if the REASON Foundation supports this it must be the good "libertarian" form of eminent domain takings.

|9.24.07 @ 10:56AM|#

Let me be the first to say, as a current native Texan, that the TTC stinks to high heaven. The plans have been made to make the highway as straight as possible and the maps for it have been up for a long time. The state has already let people know that their land will be taken regardless of their wishes.

I'm confused as to how we can value trade with a foreign country over one of our basic natural rights in this country of private property.

I understand that the state will inevitably need land and that the power of eminent domain will always be needed, but many Texans feel that this is a ridiculous plan.

You might want to check on the fact that once the highway is built, private companies cannot simply just build on it to take in revenue. The land has to be leased to them, by the state, before they can open a business. And since all businesses will be off the highway, tolls will be required to patronize those spots.

And this doesn't even talk about how small towns that had highways run through them will be adversely affected once the mega highway allows truckers and other long travelers bypass them.

One more thing: Texans have been fighting this TTC for years and fear of Mexicans or terrorists is at the back of our minds. The biggest fear is losing our private property and towns.

SIV|9.24.07 @ 11:01AM|#

Only a nativist xenophobe anti-free trader would begrudge those private investors and their public partners the profits and tax revenues from
developing seized land along the corridor.

not Dan T|9.24.07 @ 11:18AM|#

Well if those Texans don't want their land seized for the profit of private investors they could move.

Guy Montag|9.24.07 @ 11:19AM|#

I'm confused as to how we can value trade with a foreign country over one of our basic natural rights in this country of private property.

I am confused as to how this land can be properly valued now, or in the future, if all potential purchasers are on notice that the land will be taken by the State and it has only one possible future use.

Of course, I am against the government taking private land and I support a modification of the Takings Clause to force government to purchase property on the market, rather than the eminent domain method used now. That said, under the current rules, the owners must be compensated for the taking at the market rate for the property. In this case, the market has been destroyed by the State.

|9.24.07 @ 11:37AM|#

The biggest issue with the TTC that I have seen is that the Texas DOT plans to fund much of this project by putting tolls on existing roads that have already been payed for by taxpayers, and then turning the control of these new "toll-roads" over to a private firm.

Nigel Watt|9.24.07 @ 11:38AM|#

Another native Texan here.

Rick Perry is a tool of other people's money who doesn't care at all about Texans or Texas. Hence, the TTC.

SIV|9.24.07 @ 11:47AM|#

The biggest issue with the TTC that I have seen is that the Texas DOT plans to fund much of this project by putting tolls on existing roads that have already been payed for by taxpayers, and then turning the control of these new "toll-roads" over to a private firm.

Think of the gas/highway taxes this can free up for other Government spending

LibertyPlease|9.24.07 @ 11:52AM|#

Rick Perry is a tool of other people's money who doesn't care at all about Texans or Texas. Hence, the TTC.

Agreed. If you can afford to buy him, he's a great ally. For those of us who cannot give him money (and TXU has set the bar high), we are screwed at our own expense.

|9.24.07 @ 12:01PM|#

I'm as quick to work up a lather of corruption and property rights violations as the next libertarian. But I'm not sure if this project deserves special hate. Is the TTC more egregious than other new road projects?

|9.24.07 @ 12:25PM|#

I'm working on a huge pedestrian overpass that'll take those illegals right over the heartland and up to Canada! I call it the Spic Span.

|9.24.07 @ 12:27PM|#

Given that the presumption is that the road is necessary to carry burgeoning trade, one would think it could pay for itself. Therefore, it should be as private as possible -- privately acquired, privately built, privately operated.

Also, if its toll was so high and structured to carry this commercial traffic, it need not be more than a couple lanes either way: Few private cars will want to pay the tolls.

Given that picture of how the road would develop in a free market, what is being described by the state sounds like massive overkill.

Jennifer|9.24.07 @ 12:32PM|#

But I'm not sure if this project deserves special hate. Is the TTC more egregious than other new road projects?

If the state's confiscating private property to hand it over to other private property owners, then I'd say that is more egregious than the state confiscating private property that will thus become public.

Allen|9.24.07 @ 12:45PM|#

I love the idea of building more toll roads. Here in Denver e470 does a nice job of making people drive for the miles of highway they use. Want to take the beltway from it's south intersection, around to the east,and to it's north Intersection with I-25 (@45 miles), it'll cost you $10.

The issue I have is, as others have said about this project, the blurred line between the state and private companies. I want to make sure the state isn't bailing them out if it fails. Or that they're not giving them all sorts of freebies up front.

|9.24.07 @ 1:47PM|#

I'd oppose the TTC if only so it was harder for mexican semis to come to the US. I swear to god, those juryrigged POS's are more dangerous to Texas travelers than a whole army of angry Palestinians. There is no quality control or standards low enough for those guys.

The TTC is a corporate tool to get Mexican goods to the US faster, but the downsides of that outweigh the upsides several times to one.

By all means, alleviate traffic in Texas with additional toll roads (say one from Houston to Austin or Dallas to Amarillo) but for god's sakes, don't create an expressway just so Mexican products can get to someone's megastore "slightly" easier.

|9.24.07 @ 2:07PM|#

This thing just has boondoggle written all over it. There may be legitimate reasons to build such a 'corridor', but you can pretty much assume that the cost projections are grossly understated, the toll revenue projections grossly overstated, and the intrusiveness to landowners far worse than Perry's happy talk.

|9.24.07 @ 2:36PM|#

Perry won by a "plurality" because of this idiotic plan. Almost 2/3rds of Texans tried to vote him out because the TTC does NOTHING to benefit Texans. Until theres a reason to worry about shipping goods south of the border, let's focus on the real traffic problems, between Texas' REAL cities, like Houston and Austin and Dallas and Amarillo. Worrying about how to make the US more accessible from Mexico should not be a top priority and that its at the top of Perry's list shows you that he is just a corporate shill and not at all concerned about the welfare and rights of ordinary Texans. Come 2010, maybe someone infinitely more qualified will hopefully be elected and it will be no more Mr. Goodhair.

lunchstealer|9.25.07 @ 12:18PM|#

I'll admit that I haven't spent a long time looking at the TTC, and don't know all of the counter-arguments thereto, but the I35 corridor has been what I can only describe as TeH Suck for quite some time. This might not be the least expensive solution, or the one that fucks over the fewest people, but it gets three out of four real Texas cities better connected.

It may not fix the problems along I45 or I10, but it's a start.

I personally like the RCA12 version, although it might fuck Oklahoma over by generating more traffic into US75 than it's Oklahoma stretch can handle. Although I really don't care much what happens to it south of San Antonio.