Cascott, L.L.C. v. City of Arlington
2009 WL 417911, 278 S.W.3d 523 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality's use of eminent domain to acquire private property for a sports venue project that will be leased to a private entity constitutes a valid 'public use' under the Texas Constitution, particularly when a state statute declares such projects to be for a public purpose and there is no evidence that the municipality acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, or capriciously.
Facts:
- In 2004, the City of Arlington and the Dallas Cowboys negotiated a 'Master Agreement' to build a new sports stadium complex.
- The Arlington City Council passed Resolution No. 04-358, designating the stadium a 'venue project' under Chapter 334 of the Texas Local Government Code.
- The City and the Cowboys executed the Master Agreement, and the project was approved by the Texas Comptroller.
- In a special election, a majority of Arlington voters approved the Dallas Cowboys Complex Development Project and its financing through various tax increases.
- The City and the Cowboys proceeded to negotiate a long-term lease agreement for the team's use of the future stadium.
- In mid-2005, after identifying the project's location, the City began negotiating to purchase the necessary properties from their owners.
- When negotiations with seventeen property owners failed, the City of Arlington initiated condemnation proceedings to acquire their land through eminent domain.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of Arlington initiated condemnation proceedings in the county court at law against seventeen property owners.
- Special commissioners held hearings and issued monetary awards for the properties.
- The property owners filed objections to the awards and also filed pleas to the jurisdiction, challenging the City’s legal authority to condemn their property.
- In the trial court, both the City and the property owners filed competing motions for summary judgment on the issue of the condemnation's validity.
- The trial court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, ruling the taking was for a public purpose, and denied the property owners' motion.
- The cases then proceeded to trial solely on the issue of the amount of compensation due to each property owner.
- Following the trials on compensation, the trial court entered final judgments.
- The seventeen property owners (appellants) appealed the summary judgment ruling to the Court of Appeals, where the City of Arlington is the appellee and the appeals were consolidated.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a city's condemnation of private property for a stadium project, which will be leased to a private professional sports team, violate the Texas Constitution's requirement that property only be taken for a 'public use'?
Opinions:
Majority - John Cayce, Chief Justice
No, the city's condemnation of private property for the stadium project does not violate the Texas Constitution's public use requirement. Chapter 334 of the Local Government Code expressly authorizes municipalities to develop venue projects and explicitly declares that an approved venue project is 'owned, used, and held for public purposes.' Courts must give presumptive effect to such legislative declarations of public purpose. This presumption is only overcome if the landowner can prove the condemning authority acted with fraud or in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Here, the property owners presented no such evidence. The mere fact that a private entity, the Dallas Cowboys, will substantially benefit from the project and the lease does not negate the public purpose. The critical question is whether the lease furthers the public purpose of the venue project, and the court concludes that it does as a lawful means of accomplishing the project's goals.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high degree of judicial deference given to legislative declarations of 'public use' in eminent domain cases. It solidifies the principle that a project can serve a valid public purpose even when a private entity receives significant, direct benefits. By upholding the condemnation, the court provides strong legal support for municipalities in Texas to engage in public-private partnerships for economic development projects, such as sports stadiums. The ruling establishes a significant barrier for property owners challenging such takings, requiring them to meet the high burden of proving fraud or arbitrary government action, rather than merely pointing to the existence of a private beneficiary.
