City of Garland to allow DART to grab some land, the easy way or the hard way

by Chad Jones

This was a movie? Why?

At its upcoming meeting on Tuesday, July 15, the Garland City Council will consider the following:

First, they'll contemplate a resolution that will allow DART to acquire "specific properties within the City of Garland as described for the construction of certain traffic improvements."

The backstory: At the June 30, 2008 Work Session, the city council considered a request by DART that the City of Garland authorize DART to acquire four parcels of land through eminent domain for the construction of intersection capacity improvements in Garland. Efforts by DART to reach settlements with the property owners have been unsuccessful. This action would give DART the authority to initiate eminent domain proceedings on only these parcels and only if negotiations continue to be unsuccessful.

Later, the council will hold a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 33, “Transportation,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Garland by adding a new Article XII. Kinda vague wording, but one can assume the council—having discussed cell phones in school zones in a previous public hearing—is working to pass a no-cell-phone-in-school-zone amendment. Citizens are welcomed to voice their beliefs and griefs.

Click here for the full meeting agenda

Staff
Verified User
Anonymous

AnnMarie Wilson, says:

"Efforts by DART to reach settlements with the property owners have been unsuccessful."

You mean that the don't want to give up their land/homes.

"...acquire four parcels of land through eminent domain..."

You mean take the land/homes regardless.

For all those people that scream "No government interference, no taking of property, no taking of rights, protecting our homes (remember that gun issue we were all discussing - protecting personal property)" - everyone is very, very quiet on this whole issue.

There are pros and cons to most issues, but <b>eminent domain</b> has always struck complete terror in my heart.

Verified

1 year, 4 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

jtmbls, says:

Sometimes, you just have to choose your battles. :-)

Anonymous

1 year, 4 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

jasonleonwright, says:

I understand what you're saying, AnnMarie, but the story doesn't tell us anything about the land/homes. Lots of these parcells of land are owned by people without any development on them. They are just a little lot of grass, or they're a big a lot full of weeds. The TxDOT will refuse to mow the grass or do any landscaping because it's owned by Joe Blow. It's that way all over Dallas, and you'll see a lot of it especially if you travel in the Southern sector. Now if they said they're going to use eminent domain to grab Grannie's land, then it's a different story. Then we could rally 'round Grannie, and it would be like a bad movie. I say we need more facts, but until then I really don't feel moved by the DART grab.

Anonymous

1 year, 4 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

AnnMarie Wilson, says:

Facts would be lovely - anyone know more?

Regardless, eminent domain still scares me silly.

Verified

1 year, 4 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

Erin Rice, says:

FYI, Chad is out sick today, but I have called and left a message with the City of Garland for more information. As soon as I hear something, I'll update the story.

Sounds like the big questions are, 1) What is on the properties/4 parcels of land being taken, and 2) What have been the holdups in negotiations?

Any other questions before they call a sista back?