Galveston homeowners may lose their homes to the state

[pt145ss]

That is just wrong. If the state is going to condemn property, they need to pay market value for the homes, plain and simple. It is just wrong to up and take somebodies property and possessions for "the good of the people." Are we communist now?

I have not quite taken it all in just yet. But my first reaction is to disagree with you…Mostly because they knew that it this was a possibility when they bought/built on the property. There is not much difference between this and emanate domain. I do not have a huge problem with emanate domain either…with one exception…and that is when SCOTUS ruled that a municipality could use emanate domain to take your property for the purposes of selling to a private business in order to generate more tax revenue. I disagree with that aspect. But to take it because it now encroaches on public property do to Mother Nature….that is the price/risk they pay/take to live in paradise.

Knowing that this was a possibility…and I might go as far as saying an eventuality over time as all beaches erode away…they made conscious choice to assume that risk. I make this statement from experience, having spent 20 years in hurricane prone south Florida.

[sbb]

I agree with pt145ss. Although I don't live on the island I have been aware of this statute for at least 20 years. These owners gambled that they would not loose their property due to erosion. They lost the bet. Now they suffer the consequences. I never want anyone to suffer but these people knew the possible outcome of a hurricane. My prayers are that they suffered no physical harm and that their lives may return to normal.

[Nachos Libres]

"Every one of them was warned of that in their earnest money contract, in the deed they received, in the title policy they bought," he said. "And whether you like it or not, neither the Constitution of the United States nor the state of Texas nor any law permits you to have a structure on state-owned property that's subject to the flow of the tide."

Seems to me they knew the risk. Thing is, should the state have to pay people who built houses close to the ocean every time a hurricane or some other natural event occurs which causes shore line to wash away? That means Texas would be having to pay huge sums of monies every 10-20 years just because people want to build vacation / rental homes close to the beach, which we all know would end up affecting our taxes in some way.

Some people may not agree with it but the law is the law and the law was already in place before these people made their decisions to buy their homes and knew the risks. I feel for these people, especially those who will lose a significant amount of assets because of this, but sometimes the risks outweigh the benefits. You won't ever find me owning a beach house, that's for sure.

[nitrogen]

I have to agree with all the other posters here. Buyer Beware and all that.

Now I'd also say that if those owners want to try and keep their property, they might want to pool their money to see if they can work on fixing the erosion, if that's even possible. I know things like this are sometimes done in the Bahamas and in Florida. If its possible, I think the state should let them, and maybe even kick in no more than say, 1-3% of the cost, if I was feeling especially generous (which I'm honestly not.)

[HighVelocity]

"Every one of them was warned of that in their earnest money contract, in the deed they received, in the title policy they bought," he said. "And whether you like it or not, neither the Constitution of the United States nor the state of Texas nor any law permits you to have a structure on state-owned property that's subject to the flow of the tide."

This is the the deal. Anytime a person wants to put there home in a high risk area, they have to deal with the potential consequences of that risk. I'm not condoning the law, but it would appear that plenty of notice was given.

[dustyb]

That is just wrong. If the state is going to condemn property, they need to pay market value for the homes, plain and simple. It is just wrong to up and take somebodies property and possessions for "the good of the people." Are we communist now?

Their market value is probably a lot less than it was two weeks ago.

[aardwolf]

If the state owns the property, does that mean they (we the taxpayers) have to start paying the mortgage?