Eminent Domain & Convention Center Parking [Here's One For the Little Guy?]

It looks like the City of Austin might lose their claim on the downtown block which houses the Austin Convention Center parking garage as well as a water chiller built for Austin Energy. In an ironic twist, Austin may have to return the block back to its original owner, Harry Whittington (why yes, that's the hunting buddy accidentally shot by former VP Cheney a few years back), after the city acquired the property in 2001 through eminent domain.

Eminent domain can be a divisive issue, and this matter has been no exception. The city and Whittington have been arguing the issue in court for years. A jury ruled in Whittington's favor in 2007, and in mid February, Austin lost an appeal of that ruling.

Although the city lost, it seems they are quite eager for the legal battle to be over. Anne Morgan, chief of litigation for the City of Austin, told News 8: "We would love to work something out with Mr. Whittington. At this point the litigation has gone on forever. I certainly can't speak for the council members, but I know that the city as a whole would like to have this behind us."

The city has filed a motion of rehearing at the Third Court of Appeals and a decision is expected soon.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@austinist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By A.J. Bingham in News on March 17, 2010 10:15 AM 0 Comments

Comments [rss]

whooo

This is awesome. Whittington gets his land back. But does he get ownership of the building also? If so, he gets a million dollar multi-story parking structure for free.

seth

yeah, he gets that for free. a typical move at this point would be for him to threaten to demolish it. With that on the table as a possible outcome, he can then negotiate an outrageous lease with the city for the next twenty years. He probably won't live to see the completion of that lease, but his descendents will probably be left with instructions on how to maximize profit with this little operation. During the course of the lease, the property will probably continue to appreciate in value, so it'll be a double pay day when they decide to sell it.

The lesson learned here is, when you are a city who is trying to clean up a messy litigation with an assassination, don't skimp by trying to hire some slob who used to be on the board of directors at Haliburton. Get someone like that guy from "No Country for Old Men." That's the difference between Austin and Los Angeles.

seth

triman

Yep, maybe I missed it but I don't see the connection? Are you saying that eminent domain is borked in Austin and that it won't be used to force the little guy out of his home next time they want to enlarge MOPAC?

tim

Well eminent domain to enlarge MoPac would be a pretty standard use (and one that isn't that controversial). This was eminent domain for commercial use rather than community use. It's one thing to say that we need your land for a road, another to say we need it to build a building we want rather than what you want.

That said, Whittington is about as far from a "little guy" as you could get. He's pretty frickin' huge. A win for him is a win for huge corporate moneyed interests. No the little guy.

mdahmus

He's littler than the city, though, so in this particular dispute, he's the little guy.

Plus, outcomes we might happen to like just because the victims are bad guys usually make very bad law - the opposite is happening in this case; it doesn't matter that Whittington is Cheney's buddy; he's right in this case and this might stop some actually good person from getting victimized down the road.

The shameful thing is how long the city has fought this case despite being dead wrong from the beginning.

Wes

"He's littler than the city, though..."

Bingo.

rebewmad

I'm not so sure that I would call someone who owns property valued around $11 million and with enough money for prolonged litigation with the government a "little guy!"

Scooby

Whittington has/had to spend his own money on legal bills, instead of just charging it off to the taxpayers. That's what makes his the (relatively) little guy in this case.

A.J. Bingham

"Little guy" in the broadest sense. The fact is, if Whittington wasn't monied, he would've likely had to rollover and accept Austin's acquisition of his property.

However, he disagreed with the city and had the resources to fight the taking of his property, which as of now it appears the courts agree.

mdahmus

This was a really bad tactic used for a really bad purpose - we don't need a lot of subsidized parking for the Convention Center; most attendees are from out of town and already parked their cars at their hotels (or are taking cabs).