The Master Plan is Illegal
According to a downtown property owner, the city is setting itself up for lawsuits for the audacity of creating a master plan. Read on:
With the stroke of a pen, Ms. Flynn has officially designated private property as a public park and arbitrarily reduced potential development on other private property — without compensating the owner. This so-called planning is nothing less than a taking of property rights, known as “regulatory taking.” Regulatory taking is wrong on so many fronts, not the least of which is its illegality; unfortunately, it is all too common in today’s government.
Terrell Bowers, Manager
Super Duper Properties LLC
He wrote this accusation to Style, where he also accused Rachel Flynn of dishonesty, poor leadership, and arrogance.
I can’t figure out how to search for all the properties owned by Super Duper (any help?), but did discover that they own at least one vacant property downtown at 12 N. 8th St. A google search showed that one of the co-owners lives out of state.
What I find particularly galling is Mr. Bower’s accusation that Rachel Flynn “arbitrarily” created the plan. First, Mr. Bowers ignores the public nature of the planning process and attributes the plan to one city official. Second, he calls the plan arbitrary when a great deal of planning philosophy and public input created it.
But the upshot is- looks like we can brace for another lawsuit.
And it seems he’s not alone in his anger- a visitor to this blog commented on my post about Rachel Flynn suggesting that she’s incompetent and acting illegally.
February 15, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Super Duper Properties LLC owns the following Super Duper properties.
619 E Main St
625 E Min St
12 N 8th St
424 E Grace St
Feel free to contact me for some hints on tracking this stuff down.
February 15, 2008 at 12:46 pm
I think Terrell is struggling with a more fundamental issue. Is land in American cities going to be developed solely on the economic system of capitalism, or is there going to be a level of socialism overlaid?
As much as I support free market capitalism in many respects - I say let homeowners who got in on ARMs suffer the consequences - central-city land should be viewed as a public space as much as it is private. There in lies the rub. And my belief is a downtown plan is a community’s - not a person’s - attempt at reconciling socialism with capitalism in the way America does best. Clearly, Terrell is a free-market capitalist and not interested in a public forum regarding private land use. I’m sure he loves Houston, where laissez faire planning laws result - literally - with liquor stores opening up next to elementary schools.
One question Terrell poses in his article is “Ask a patient which is more important: keeping an old building or having a better hospital.” First, his question poses a false choice: you either (a) want an old building or (b) want a better hospital. Putting this aside, he continues to consider the decisions surrounding state-funded (therefore public-funded) facilities as being immune to public/social considerations.
He should reconsider his argument.
February 15, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I think he is overstating the issue out of anger and general principals. There are legitimate issues and were I in his position might feel just as peeved.
This coincides with yesterdays announcement in the RTD of a 250 million dollar proposal for Mayo Isle and Tuesday’s meeting on the DMP and the riverfront. Rachel Flynn and the Mayor’s Office are making sounds that this could be accommodated with reasonable accomodation made for public access, very much like your post, A Marina, a Park … As a matter of fact they (the RTD) presents the matter in much the same way in their inset blurb on page 6.