7 ms·

A plan to connect Houston to Dallas with a bullet train has been grinding its way along for years now[0]. Since Texas is loath to use eminent domain, the planni

A plan to connect Houston to Dallas with a bullet train has been grinding its way along for years now[0]. Since Texas is loath to use eminent domain, the planning phase has been stalled for a loooong time. [0]: https://www.texascentral.com/project/ https://www.texascentral.com/project/ Edit: Whoops, wrong project. Still, the plans are there, we just need willing politicians.

basil-rash 3y ago
Rephrased, Texans think the rights of private land owners matter more than the latest politician’s talking points. The people downvoting this have clearly never had government agents steal anything from them. Or believe that when they do, it’s always “for the greater good”.
- nickpp 3y ago
  It's interesting that the government can't convince owners to sell. I mean - we're talking about politicians. They manage to negotiate everything and compromise even in the middle of wars. See prisoner exchange between Russia and Ukraine right now. Or Israel and Hamas. Worst enemies and they can still find a compromise. It can't be just about money - governments successfully negotiate with unions that hold the whole country over a barrel with strikes of essential services. But eminent domain to build vital infrastructure? No - forced confiscation is the only solution. Strange.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    Imagine that you had to negotiate with a homeowner. You could find a price where you could buy their property. Now imagine that you had to negotiate with 10,000 homeowners. At least one of them is going to insist that their place is worth one billion dollars and count on you caving because they can hold up the entire project. That's why forced confiscation - because people try to hold the project hostage for ransom.
    - nickpp 3y ago
      > because people try to hold the project hostage for ransom Unions hold countries hostage by closing down rail or airports. Still, a solution that doesn't cost 1 billion dollars per person is always found. > imagine that you had to negotiate with 10,000 homeowners Imagine you offer them 2-10x market value. With a confidentiality clause. And the threat of confiscation or project abandonment. I believe an amiable solution would be found in most cases.
      - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        > Unions hold countries hostage by closing down rail or airports. Still, a solution that doesn't cost 1 billion dollars per person is always found. Sure. It's often found in the form of a court decision. > Imagine you offer them 2-10x market value. With a confidentiality clause. And the threat of confiscation or project abandonment. I believe an amiable solution would be found in most cases. Sure - in most cases. And for the ones that won't? You're going to have to either abandon the project, wait for them to die, or confiscate.
        nickpp 3y ago
        > And for the ones that won't? Then you confiscate, sure. And show publicly that you offered 10x and were refused. But not confiscation by default, in all cases. I guess my argument is that if you really want something, you better pay up. Like for anything else, from cars and boats to 10x developers. What if the government could come to you whenever they want and say: I forcefully require your work and talent and I will not pay more than market price for it.
        sarchertech 3y ago
        They can and have. It’s called conscription.
        AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        > But not confiscation by default, in all cases. They don't (at least, I don't think they do). I don't know if I said something that you interpreted as "confiscate first", but that was not what I meant.
  - sarchertech 3y ago
    The problem is that there are only so many viable paths between cities. Rails is worse than roads in this case because turns can't be as sharp and grades can't be as steep. When there are potentially tens of thousands of property owners along that path, each property owner can derail the whole thing or add enormous costs, so they have an insanely strong negotiating position. If you were just to attempt to negotiate with each property owner, the cost would make building new rail in a populated area impossible. There has never been any real length of railroad built through a populated area with many landowners without some kind of government intervention akin to eminent domain.
  - dumbo-octopus 3y ago
    It's a tragedy of the commons situation - you might be able to buy 90% of the land for a "reasonable price" (which is hard to define - depending on the type of land use, the value of the owner's entire plot would change significantly by having a train going by every day, sometimes greater sometimes lesser), but if the remaining 10% don't play ball you can't have the train. So the government is in a position of "we'll give you X for this, but if you don't agree we'll just take it from you", which is a... non-Texan position for government to be in, to say the least.
    - dashundchen 3y ago
      > So the government is in a position of "we'll give you X for this, but if you don't agree we'll just take it from you", which is a... non-Texan position for government to be in, to say the least. Texas government doesn't seem to have that reservation when it comes to highway expansions within cities, that's for sure.
      - dumbo-octopus 3y ago
        Good point. But highway expansions have localized benefits in ways trains don't. Everyone "knows" that another lane would fix everything on their daily commute, so amassing the political capital to make it happen isn't too hard. But a train to connect distant region X to distant region Y, by taking land from folks who hardly ever make that trip anyways? Harder sell.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- mikepurvis 3y ago
  I mean, China has 45,000 kilometers of HSR and the US has zero. So I'm not saying that taking people's houses to build public infrastructure is always the right thing to do, but there's a case to be made for a more balanced view than just "never". (Also China is a huge, spread out place just like the US, so miss me with those arguments about that being the reason passenger rail doesn't work here.)
  - dylan604 3y ago
    But you're totally ignoring the Texas ethos. I'm going to do whatever I want on my land, and I don't want your train that does absolutely nothing for me to cut through my property is a very common point of view. As a land owner, you never get back once it's been given away. They only continue to want to take more. You do it once, you just show you're willing. This is something that takes the land away forever, not leasing with monthly payments for access like an oil well. They really just need to wait until the older owners start to die off where their kids would rather have a check than the land. It might take a few more generations though. Generational land ownership is a helluva drug
    - chgs 3y ago
      > Generational land ownership is a helluva drug Feudal lords like lording it.
  - dumbo-octopus 3y ago
    The case you've presented is "China does it, so we should too", which is not all that strong of an argument.
    - shermantanktop 3y ago
      Yes, the strawman version of the case is not strong, and of course plays on the fear of possible unspecified other things we would do if we copied China as a general approach. But what about the steelman version of the case? I think it's a lot stronger.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dwaltrip 3y ago
  How do you the weigh the transportation rights of many against the property rights of one?
  - basil-rash 3y ago
    What’s this “transportation right” you speak of? The right to roam isn’t guaranteed by the constitution, but protection against unlawful seizure of private property is. We should be careful to not conflate the rights actually guaranteed to us by the law of the land with things that various individuals feel are “nice to have”. And certainly not deprioritize the former in favor of the latter.
    - red-iron-pine 3y ago
      unlawful seizure -- there sure is a law about it, called eminent domain
      - basil-rash 3y ago
        That requires “just compensation”, as per the text of the very amendment I cited. Texan voters are unwilling to provide the compensation. Therefore the project does not go forward. It’s really a very simple concept.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- seadan83 3y ago
  Unsupported statements that are myopic deserve a downvote. You assume to know what others believe, and would assume to know their past as well. Overall, it doesn't really strike me that Texas is actually any different from any other state West of the Mississippi. Do you have the data to show otherwise? As-is, in Texas: "Private property can include land and certain improvements that are on that property. Private property may only be taken by a governmental entity or private entity that is authorized by law to do so. Your property may be taken only for a public purpose." [1] I'm curious if anyone knows of certain restrictions that exist in Texas that do not exist in other states. I would tend to assume that Texas is actually just exactly like the rest of the country when it comes to eminent domain laws. As for reasons to up-vote or downvote.. There's an interesting history for the national highway system, eminent domain was used very heavily to build highways through the centers of virtually all major cities west of the Mississippi. For sure, it was not the rich parts of the cities that were plowed. So, even a stereo-typical twitter "left'ish" might disagree with you that they must believe eminent domain to be a good thing and always for the greater good. To this extent, I feel your comment is more talking points than actual dialog. What's more, nobody should ever assume to know what someone else believes, or to assume to know their history. One problem with the human mind, it has trouble grasping that there are 9 billion individuals on this planet who are all different from one another, each and every single one of them. [1] https://www2.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/agency/landowners_billofrights.pdf https://www2.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/agency/landowner...
majormajor 3y ago
> Since Texas is loath to use eminent domain, the planning phase has been stalled for a loooong time. Is this a state policy? It isn't necessarily a city one, see https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/fort-worth/article282759828.html https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/fort-worth/article2... and related which I've seen pop up in the news at time for decades. "The City Council has authorized the use of eminent domain 29 times in the past two years, the most the city has used the land grabbing tactic since 2013."
- dylan604 3y ago
  Yes, it's a state thing. Getting city people aligned is much easier because the area is much smaller in total area, as well as the parcels of land are smaller. Once you get into the open land outside of the city, the parcels of land become larger with smaller number of owners that are very loath to allow the state to "come and take it". You might get one person to agree, but then the surrounding owners say no, and the route has to change yet again.
balderdash 3y ago
Texas is very willing to use eminent domain, but perhaps not for rail projects or there are different statues for such a project. The use of eminent domain is pretty common for pipeline projects
- dustincoates 3y ago
  It seems to have been largely forgotten (or never remembered, as transplants weren't around for it), but I think there's still a lot of scar tissue around eminent domain after the failed Trans-Texas Corridor project. It was pushed by a very popular Republican governor and completely failed after public outcry. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Texas_Corridor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Texas_Corridor

basil-rash 3y ago

Rephrased, Texans think the rights of private land owners matter more than the latest politician’s talking points. The people downvoting this have clearly never had government agents steal anything from them. Or believe that when they do, it’s always “for the greater good”.

nickpp 3y ago
It's interesting that the government can't convince owners to sell. I mean - we're talking about politicians. They manage to negotiate everything and compromise even in the middle of wars. See prisoner exchange between Russia and Ukraine right now. Or Israel and Hamas. Worst enemies and they can still find a compromise. It can't be just about money - governments successfully negotiate with unions that hold the whole country over a barrel with strikes of essential services. But eminent domain to build vital infrastructure? No - forced confiscation is the only solution. Strange.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  Imagine that you had to negotiate with a homeowner. You could find a price where you could buy their property. Now imagine that you had to negotiate with 10,000 homeowners. At least one of them is going to insist that their place is worth one billion dollars and count on you caving because they can hold up the entire project. That's why forced confiscation - because people try to hold the project hostage for ransom.
  - nickpp 3y ago
    > because people try to hold the project hostage for ransom Unions hold countries hostage by closing down rail or airports. Still, a solution that doesn't cost 1 billion dollars per person is always found. > imagine that you had to negotiate with 10,000 homeowners Imagine you offer them 2-10x market value. With a confidentiality clause. And the threat of confiscation or project abandonment. I believe an amiable solution would be found in most cases.
    - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      > Unions hold countries hostage by closing down rail or airports. Still, a solution that doesn't cost 1 billion dollars per person is always found. Sure. It's often found in the form of a court decision. > Imagine you offer them 2-10x market value. With a confidentiality clause. And the threat of confiscation or project abandonment. I believe an amiable solution would be found in most cases. Sure - in most cases. And for the ones that won't? You're going to have to either abandon the project, wait for them to die, or confiscate.
      - nickpp 3y ago
        > And for the ones that won't? Then you confiscate, sure. And show publicly that you offered 10x and were refused. But not confiscation by default, in all cases. I guess my argument is that if you really want something, you better pay up. Like for anything else, from cars and boats to 10x developers. What if the government could come to you whenever they want and say: I forcefully require your work and talent and I will not pay more than market price for it.
        sarchertech 3y ago
        They can and have. It’s called conscription.
        AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        > But not confiscation by default, in all cases. They don't (at least, I don't think they do). I don't know if I said something that you interpreted as "confiscate first", but that was not what I meant.
- sarchertech 3y ago
  The problem is that there are only so many viable paths between cities. Rails is worse than roads in this case because turns can't be as sharp and grades can't be as steep. When there are potentially tens of thousands of property owners along that path, each property owner can derail the whole thing or add enormous costs, so they have an insanely strong negotiating position. If you were just to attempt to negotiate with each property owner, the cost would make building new rail in a populated area impossible. There has never been any real length of railroad built through a populated area with many landowners without some kind of government intervention akin to eminent domain.
- dumbo-octopus 3y ago
  It's a tragedy of the commons situation - you might be able to buy 90% of the land for a "reasonable price" (which is hard to define - depending on the type of land use, the value of the owner's entire plot would change significantly by having a train going by every day, sometimes greater sometimes lesser), but if the remaining 10% don't play ball you can't have the train. So the government is in a position of "we'll give you X for this, but if you don't agree we'll just take it from you", which is a... non-Texan position for government to be in, to say the least.
  - dashundchen 3y ago
    > So the government is in a position of "we'll give you X for this, but if you don't agree we'll just take it from you", which is a... non-Texan position for government to be in, to say the least. Texas government doesn't seem to have that reservation when it comes to highway expansions within cities, that's for sure.
    - dumbo-octopus 3y ago
      Good point. But highway expansions have localized benefits in ways trains don't. Everyone "knows" that another lane would fix everything on their daily commute, so amassing the political capital to make it happen isn't too hard. But a train to connect distant region X to distant region Y, by taking land from folks who hardly ever make that trip anyways? Harder sell.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
mikepurvis 3y ago
I mean, China has 45,000 kilometers of HSR and the US has zero. So I'm not saying that taking people's houses to build public infrastructure is always the right thing to do, but there's a case to be made for a more balanced view than just "never". (Also China is a huge, spread out place just like the US, so miss me with those arguments about that being the reason passenger rail doesn't work here.)
- dylan604 3y ago
  But you're totally ignoring the Texas ethos. I'm going to do whatever I want on my land, and I don't want your train that does absolutely nothing for me to cut through my property is a very common point of view. As a land owner, you never get back once it's been given away. They only continue to want to take more. You do it once, you just show you're willing. This is something that takes the land away forever, not leasing with monthly payments for access like an oil well. They really just need to wait until the older owners start to die off where their kids would rather have a check than the land. It might take a few more generations though. Generational land ownership is a helluva drug
  - chgs 3y ago
    > Generational land ownership is a helluva drug Feudal lords like lording it.
- dumbo-octopus 3y ago
  The case you've presented is "China does it, so we should too", which is not all that strong of an argument.
  - shermantanktop 3y ago
    Yes, the strawman version of the case is not strong, and of course plays on the fear of possible unspecified other things we would do if we copied China as a general approach. But what about the steelman version of the case? I think it's a lot stronger.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dwaltrip 3y ago
How do you the weigh the transportation rights of many against the property rights of one?
- basil-rash 3y ago
  What’s this “transportation right” you speak of? The right to roam isn’t guaranteed by the constitution, but protection against unlawful seizure of private property is. We should be careful to not conflate the rights actually guaranteed to us by the law of the land with things that various individuals feel are “nice to have”. And certainly not deprioritize the former in favor of the latter.
  - red-iron-pine 3y ago
    unlawful seizure -- there sure is a law about it, called eminent domain
    - basil-rash 3y ago
      That requires “just compensation”, as per the text of the very amendment I cited. Texan voters are unwilling to provide the compensation. Therefore the project does not go forward. It’s really a very simple concept.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
seadan83 3y ago
Unsupported statements that are myopic deserve a downvote. You assume to know what others believe, and would assume to know their past as well. Overall, it doesn't really strike me that Texas is actually any different from any other state West of the Mississippi. Do you have the data to show otherwise? As-is, in Texas: "Private property can include land and certain improvements that are on that property. Private property may only be taken by a governmental entity or private entity that is authorized by law to do so. Your property may be taken only for a public purpose." [1] I'm curious if anyone knows of certain restrictions that exist in Texas that do not exist in other states. I would tend to assume that Texas is actually just exactly like the rest of the country when it comes to eminent domain laws. As for reasons to up-vote or downvote.. There's an interesting history for the national highway system, eminent domain was used very heavily to build highways through the centers of virtually all major cities west of the Mississippi. For sure, it was not the rich parts of the cities that were plowed. So, even a stereo-typical twitter "left'ish" might disagree with you that they must believe eminent domain to be a good thing and always for the greater good. To this extent, I feel your comment is more talking points than actual dialog. What's more, nobody should ever assume to know what someone else believes, or to assume to know their history. One problem with the human mind, it has trouble grasping that there are 9 billion individuals on this planet who are all different from one another, each and every single one of them. [1] https://www2.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/agency/landowners_billofrights.pdf https://www2.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/agency/landowner...

majormajor 3y ago

> Since Texas is loath to use eminent domain, the planning phase has been stalled for a loooong time. Is this a state policy? It isn't necessarily a city one, see https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/fort-worth/article282759828.html https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/fort-worth/article2... and related which I've seen pop up in the news at time for decades. "The City Council has authorized the use of eminent domain 29 times in the past two years, the most the city has used the land grabbing tactic since 2013."

dylan604 3y ago
Yes, it's a state thing. Getting city people aligned is much easier because the area is much smaller in total area, as well as the parcels of land are smaller. Once you get into the open land outside of the city, the parcels of land become larger with smaller number of owners that are very loath to allow the state to "come and take it". You might get one person to agree, but then the surrounding owners say no, and the route has to change yet again.

balderdash 3y ago

Texas is very willing to use eminent domain, but perhaps not for rail projects or there are different statues for such a project. The use of eminent domain is pretty common for pipeline projects

dustincoates 3y ago
It seems to have been largely forgotten (or never remembered, as transplants weren't around for it), but I think there's still a lot of scar tissue around eminent domain after the failed Trans-Texas Corridor project. It was pushed by a very popular Republican governor and completely failed after public outcry. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Texas_Corridor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Texas_Corridor