Who will stop the Taxpayer Extortion Act?

I've written a lot lately about the so-called "takings" legislation that is moving through the Texas legislature, the Taxpayer Extortion Act, and, alas, am getting quite sick of it.  Unfortunately, it is still alive, with HB 2833 having officially passed the House yesterday, so I feel compelled to continue.

The Taxpayer Extortion Act is in the hands of the Texas state senate now, a bit amended from its original version.  But remaining intact is its fundamental nature of compelling taxpayers to pay off irresponsible real estate developers to prevent those same developers from taking actions that would end up polluting aquifers that supply water to millions of people.

So I'll continue to highlight every article I find about this in the press.  Now, it's the weekly Austin Chronicle's turn:

The city of Austin and several other Central Texas cities view the bill as what it in fact is – a "taking" of local control and a "giving" of taxpayer subsidies to landowners/developers.

Cities and environmental groups from across the state have spent the past weeks, days, and now, the final hours, prevailing on senators to do the right thing. On the other hand, so have "property rights" activists. If cautiously cocky developer lobbyists are the best indicators of what to expect in the Senate, then we are apparently screwed. On a hopeful note, opponents late Tuesday were said to be close to securing the magic number of 11 senators needed to block the legislation.

...

It's a wonder that the bill even made it out of committee in the first place, given the Legislative Budget Board's gloomy analysis: "The financial impact on cities is anticipated to be substantial, especially in fast-growing areas of the state," the report warns. "Cities would have to prepare a 'takings' impact assessment for each regulation. ... Uncertainty created by the bill could result in high legal fees to determine whether appraisals are correct."

But even bad bills – rather, especially the bad bills – have a way of winning over legislators, no matter how dire or costly the projected outcome. When the bill returned to the floor for a third time on Monday, Reps. Rodriguez, Burnam, and Elliott Naishtat each made several attempts to pile on amendments that would gut, weaken, or remedy the measure, to no avail. In the end, the House, including area Reps. Terry Keel, Todd Baxter, and Mike Krusee, voted 103-41 to send Austin and its million-dollar lobby team packing.

The article goes on to discuss more information about the shady group of Austin-area real estate developers that readers of this site already are quite familiar with, the Texas Landowners Conservancy.

Certainly at least 11 state senators will keep the public's interest in mind, and kill this bill.  Certainly?

UPDATE:  Matt has more about this bill at Just Another Blog, including this:

Puente offered an amendment that was accepted that supposedly would protect San Antonio, but it does not. The Puente amendment does not protect San Antonio's water quality ordinance: it prevents San Antonio from limiting impervious cover more than 30% in the recharge zone for single familty and duplex developments, and it prevents San Antonio from limiting impervious cover more than 45% in all other circumstances. The Puente amendment does not solve any other zoning and land use problems that this bill will create for San Antonio, including restrictions associated with the River Walk and downtown preservation.

Comments

[Griffin]

To the author: Will you shoot me an email at griffin@markethardware.com? I work for some local environmental groups and I would like to talk with you offline... Thanks