2005-05-16 Special Called Regular Meeting of La Porte City Council

Browse Search

NAY-17-05 TUE 11:08 AM TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE .......... FAX NO, 5122317490 p, 05 III fact, most land liSt: regulations increase the value of most property in an area by prohibiting a certain use on one parcel. Thc effect of B.B. 2833 would be to reqllire city residents to subsidize one properlY owner to the detriment of neighboring property owners. Interestingly, the bill does not provide that if a land llse regulation increases a parcel's value, as most do, the owner must compensate the city in any way. In 1995, the legislature exempted cities from the Act. Why? As opposed lO rmal residents, city residents have the ex.pectation that their properly will be protected for the good of the city as a whole. Because of that expeclation, cities regulate private real property in many ways, and a city shouldn't have to ineur inordinate costs to enforce those appropriate limits. As the Texas Sllpreme Court has stated: "the lakings clause. ..does not charge the ~ovcrnment with guaranteeing the profitability of every piece of land subject to its authority. Purchasing and developing real estate carries with it certain fillMcial risks, anu it is nol the government's duty lO underwrite this risk." Certain groups may try to frame this bill as protection for rural residents. On the contrary, this bill strikes at the very reason cities are incorporated in the first place: to protect the property values and the health and sctjety a/those living in close proximity to one anothel". Make no mistake, this bill is devc.\s~'\ting for Tex.as cities. DOWN BY THE RIVER IN THE ETJ: F(REWORKS~ FJREARMS~ AND MUSIC? Ooes your city prohibit the sale or possession of fireworks in the extraterritorial jllrisdiction (ETJ)? What abo\lllhc discharge of firearms? Have you extended your noise ordinance to the TIT J to protect the welfare of city residents? House Rill 2097 by Chisun\ is a detrimental bill that could curtail nuisance regulations in the ETJ. The bill would provide that a home nile city's authority to abate a nuisance within 5,000 fe~t of the city limits does not include areas within 50 feet of a public waterway. (A city in a counly that borders the Gulf or Mexico or a city within certain coullties through which the Guadalupe or Comal rivers flow are exempt from the bill). In other words, even if a city prohibits the sale or discharge of fireworks within its ETJ, a person would be allowed to engage in those activities within 50 feet of a river or a lake. Why would such a bill be introduced'? According to a press report, the bill is meant to address one specific situation, but could harm almost evel)' home rule city in Texas. The Austin American-Statesman recently reported that one city in central Texas extended its noise ordinance to the ETJ. According to the article, H.B. 2097 is designed to help a nightclub located on a lake in that city's ETJ by prohibiting the city from regulating the noise level of live bands near residential areas. The result of the bill would be to removt: important health and safety authority from virtually every horne rule city in Texas. The bill passed the House on April 13. City officials should contact theIr senatOrs to express opposition La H.B. 2097. 2