I love the idea of a privately funded, high-speed train between the two largest cities in Texas. This project epitomizes everything great about America and Texas. It is an example of individuals having an audacious dream and then working to make that dream come true. That is something worth celebrating, supporting, and admiring.
However, while I celebrate, support, and admire what you want to create and achieve, I cannot celebrate, support, or admire your means for doing so. You seek to use eminent domain to acquire the land needed to build your line, and eminent domain is a viscous and evil idea. You cannot accomplish good and noble ends by using vicious and evil means.
Eminent domain forces owners to “sell” their property regardless of their own desires. Yes, you must pay them “just compensation,” but when one does not want to sell, no compensation is just. “Just compensation” only applies when all of the parties to a transaction are acting voluntarily. Forcing someone to sell isn’t just. It is a gross injustice. While I disagree with your tactics, I object even more to the tactics used by your opponents.
Your opponents have lobbied their state Representatives and Senators to pass bills explicitly intended to stop you. In the 2017 session, at least twenty bills were introduced with the purpose of stopping you.
As an example of the proposed legislation, HB2163 would have required rail lines for high-speed trains to be elevated forty feet in certain counties. This requirement would have dictated how Texas Central could use its property. It would not have been allowed to build the line at an elevation that it deemed best. Instead, you would have to meet the demands of state legislators.
As another example, SB978 would have required Texas Central to return all land to its “natural state” if the line failed. This bill would have imposed terms and conditions on Texas Central that it may or may not agree to.
As a third example, SB981 would have required Texas Central to demonstrate the compatibility of its rail line with other technologies. A property owner has a moral right to use his property as he chooses, including to introduce new technologies. Many (if not most) significant innovations in history, such as Edison’s light bulb and Ford’s Model T, were incompatible with existing technologies. So? If Texas Central wishes to use “incompatible” technology, it has a moral right to do so. Where would we be today if “incompatible” technologies were banned?
As a final example, SB092 would have required Texas Central to demonstrate the financial viability of its project. Businesses are launched every day in Texas, and virtually none have to demonstrate financial viability. Again, this would have imposed a condition on Texas Central that it may or may not agree to.
In principle, as well as in practice, the proposed bills are no different than eminent domain. They would force Texas Central to use and dispose of its property on terms that it may or may not agree with.
I argue, as do many of your opponents, that your use of eminent domain violates property rights. But many of the attempts to stop you are equally guilty of violating property rights. I defend the principle of property rights, no matter who the intended victim of those violations is.
The right to property protects your freedom to use, trade, and dispose of your land as you choose. It means the freedom to farm or build a railroad. It means the freedom to sell your land or bequeath it to another. It means the freedom to use and dispose as you choose. This is true for you, and it is true for rural landowners.
Rural landowners have a moral right to sell their property to you or not. You have a moral right to use the property that you acquire as you choose.
If you want to succeed in your project, defend the principle of property rights. You will gain more allies, and you will set an admirable example. Principles matter.
I don’t think that you should be allowed to “buy” property from unwilling sellers. But I don’t think that the state should impose arbitrary restrictions on you either. There is a solution to this. It is called property rights. If you can purchase the land that you need without resorting to eminent domain, I will be one of your biggest supporters. If you can’t, then your project should fail. But I hope, I really hope, that you can succeed.
“…eminent domain is a viscous and evil idea.”
While I agree that eminent domain is evil and could be characterized as slow-moving and sticky, I think you’re probably wanting the word ‘vicious’.
You are right. Thank you.