On October 2, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott sent a letter to the Prime Minister of Japan voicing his support for the high speed railroad proposed to be built between Dallas and Houston by Texas Central Railroad. Texans Against High-Speed Rail, a group opposed to the project, contacted the governor and argued that he had been misinformed about certain aspects of the project. In response, a statement released by Abbott’s office said, “From the beginning of this project, the Governor made clear that he could support this project if, and only if, the private property rights of Texans are fully respected and no state funding is used.” The statement went on to promise a re-examination of the issue.
If Abbott is a man of his word, then this is a no-brainer. Texas Central has made it clear that it will use eminent domain to obtain the land needed. Texas Central has been embroiled in numerous court battles seeking authority to use eminent domain. Three trial court judges have ruled against the company, and one case is scheduled to be heard by the Texas Supreme Court.
Any entity that uses (or even threatens to use) eminent domain is not respecting property rights. The right to property means the freedom to create, use, keep, and trade material values as one chooses. Eminent domain forces an owner to sell his property regardless of his own desires or judgement. Eminent domain is a direct assault on property rights.
If Abbott is a man of his word, then he will withdraw his support for Texas Central until the company renounces its desire to use eminent domain. Of course, that would mean the end of the project and Texas Central.
The Texas Institute for Property Rights supports the idea of a privately built (in contrast to privately financed) high-speed rail between the state’s two largest cities. But a privately built railroad means that every aspect of the project be based on the voluntary consent of every party involved. This means that taxpayers can’t be forced to finance the project. It means that the railroad can’t use the coercive power of government to force landowners to sell their property.
A company that can acquire a large tract of land through voluntary exchange deserves our praise and support. But if a company must resort to government force, then it should be opposed as a matter of principle.