3/26/25 – From a public policy perspective, is it more economical to permit floodplain developments or mitigate them after floods? I asked ChatGPT that question this morning. It was consistent with year’s of research on flooding.
The issue pertains directly to posts in the last two days about a proposed development called the Crossing at the Commons of Lake Houston. After being required by the City of Houston to raise the elevation of slabs two feet above the 500-year floodplain, the developer challenged the City all the way to the Texas Supreme Court.
Location of the Crossing at The Commons of Lake Houston relative to Kingwood and Lake Houston Park
Policymakers, urban planners, and economists wrestle with this question of prevention vs. correction all the time. The short answer: It’s generally more economical to restrict floodplain development than to pay for damages later. Here’s why.
Cost Comparison: Prevention vs. Mitigation
Upfront Development in Floodplains (Short-Term Gain)
Pros: Cheaper land, attractive to developers and buyers.
Cons: High long-term costs due to:
Property damage (often repetitive).
Infrastructure repair (roads, utilities).
Emergency response costs.
Health impacts (mold, contaminated water).
Insurance payouts or federal disaster relief.
FEMA reports that every $1 spent on mitigation saves an average of $6 in future disaster costs.
A scientific study published in the journal Nature Sustainability found similar results. Every dollar spent acquiring flood-prone land (a specific kind of mitigation) avoids five dollars in damages.
Examples of Mitigation Costs
Post-flood buyouts: Government often buys and demolishes homes after repeated flooding.
Levees/dams: Expensive to build and maintain — and they can fail.
Flood insurance subsidies: Taxpayers often foot the bill via programs like the U.S. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which is deeply in debt.
Smart Prevention Strategies (More Economic in the Long Run)
Zoning restrictions to keep development out of high-risk zones.
Green infrastructure like wetlands that absorb floodwaters.
Elevated buildings or flood-resistant designs where development is unavoidable.
Buyouts and conservation easements before development occurs.
In the past, Houston allowed extensive floodplain development. As a consequence, it faced massive losses during Hurricane Harvey. Post-flood buyouts and infrastructure repairs have cost billions. The estimated costs of Harvey adjusted for inflation now approach $160 billion.
“While development in floodplains may seem cheaper at first, the long-term economic, environmental, and social costs almost always outweigh the initial savings,” according to ChatGPT.
The developer reaps the profit, but taxpayers bear the costs.
Houston and Harris County
Looking at Houston and Harris County as opposed to national figures, evidence again suggests that proactive floodplain management is far more cost-effective than reactive mitigation.
The enormous expenses associated with post-flood recovery—illustrated by the massive losses from Hurricane Harvey—underscore the economic and social benefits of investing in prevention. Not only does prevention save money, it also helps protect community well-being, property values, and local infrastructure.
Houston and Harris County have adopted several preventive measures. Chief among them:
Floodplain Development Regulations:
Houston enforces stringent regulations for construction within flood-prone areas. The city’s Floodplain Management Office oversees permitting to ensure compliance with the floodplain ordinance and FEMA regulations. Notably, new structures are required to be elevated at least two feet above the 500-year flood elevation to mitigate potential flood damage.
Home Buyout Programs:
The Harris County Flood Control District administers voluntary home buyout programs aimed at relocating residents from high-risk flood zones. These programs have successfully acquired and demolished numerous properties, restoring approximately 1,300 acres to their natural floodplain functions and preventing future flood damages.
Such investments in flood mitigation have proven to be economically beneficial not just nationally, but in Houston, too. Studies indicate that for every $1 spent on mitigation, there is an average savings of $6 in future disaster costs.
$2.5 Billion 2018 Flood Bond
In 2018, Harris County voters passed a $2.5 billion flood bond. While primarily aimed at correcting past problems, it will also prevent future flooding. But so far, most of the money has been spent in Low-to-Moderate Income areas. That leaves more affluent areas, including the Commons of Lake Houston, with elevated flood risk.
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Crossing-Location.jpg?fit=1100%2C680&ssl=16801100adminadmin2025-03-26 15:02:502025-03-26 15:36:31Is it more economic to permit floodplain developments or mitigate them after floods?
3/25/25 – Almost eight years after Hurricane Harvey and a massive region-wide effort to update flood maps, FEMA still features maps on its website based on decades-old data that don’t come close to showing true flood risk. The old maps cause confusion among homebuyers who may not understand their limitations. And that helps developers pursue and profit from risky ventures in floodplains.
Three-Year Delay for New Maps and Still Counting
FEMA has yet to release maps based on recent Atlas-14 data developed after Hurricane Harvey. Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) anticipated release of FEMA’s new preliminary maps three years ago and release of the final maps by now. See the timeline below published in 2020.
Source: Screen Capture from Harris County Flood Control DistrictMAAPnext site in 2020.
I requested the release date for the new maps from Harris County and Federal officials. However, they did not respond.
Delays Contribute to Confusion about Safety of New Developments
The delays have contributed to confusion about the safety of new developments near or in floodplains.
Take, for instance, the lawsuit between the City of Houston and one of the area’s largest developers. According to a Texas Supreme Court decision released last Friday, the Signorelli Companies want to develop more than 500 lots near the San Jacinto East Fork as part of The Commons of Lake Houston.
So, the City imposed higher elevation requirements for homes in anticipation of the new flood maps. That triggered a property-rights lawsuit by the developer, which claimed the City’s requirements made the property “undevelopable.”
Sometimes We Just Never Learn
Sometimes, it feels as if we just never learn. I understand a company’s desire to make money from its land. But unsuspecting homebuyers could lose their life savings. Worse, more people could die.
And we haven’t even mentioned yet the costs of flood mitigation, disaster relief, buyouts, and restoration of the natural ecosystems – that already protect people for free.
In my opinion, for the public good, some land just shouldn’t be built on.
The map below shows the extent of those 100- and 500-year floodplains in 2007 maps as dotted lines superimposed over a proposed new section of the Commons called the Crossing.
Close up of plat. Floodway is to left of heavy dotted line. 100-year and 500-year floodplains are shown as lighter dotted lines farther right.
Two Pictures Worth 2,000 Woods
These two pictures, sent to me by a nearby resident of an existing home on higher ground in the Commons, illustrate the problem.
First image shows extent of the Harvey flood. Second shows Signorelli’s proposed development. High water mark during Harvey identified as Position 1.
Think such a flood can’t happen again in your lifetime? That Harvey was a thousand-year storm?
It almost happened again in May 2024 during a no-name storm a month before the start of hurricane season. The screen capture below shows historical HCFCD data from a gage just upstream from the Commons. Note the last three entries.
That no-name storm produced flooding almost five feet higher than Imelda and only about four feet lower than Harvey. It was the second highest flood at that location since HCFCD started keeping records!
Will We Repeat Mistakes of the Past?
The thing about floodplains is that they keep growing with upstream development – especially as other developers push into wetlands near rivers and streams. And the area upstream from the Commons is growing very quickly.
At some point (like now), it may make more sense to donate this land to an organization such as the Bayou Land Conservancy, Houston Parks, or Texas Parks and Wildlife. That would offer the developer some tax benefits. That could also help protect the public, protect lenders, help hold down insurance rates, provide recreation, and reduce future mitigation costs. It would even likely add value to homes on higher ground.
Posted by Bob Rehak based on 3/25/25
2765 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
3/24/25 – On March 21, 2025, the Supreme Court of Texas ruled on a long-running lawsuit between a developer and the City of Houston over floodplain regulation. The Supreme Court reversed an Appeals Court judgement, which had dismissed the developer’s claims against the City, thus keeping the case alive.
The developer argued that the City’s changes to floodplain regulation after Hurricane Harvey made their river-front property “undevelopable” and therefore were an unconstitutional taking of their property.
The case could have far-reaching implications for property rights advocates, developers, the enforcement of floodplain regulations, building codes, public safety, availability of flood insurance, and more.
However, the case also involves many specific issues, not yet decided, that could limit those ramifications. The Supreme Court acknowledged validity to the claims of both parties.
After ruling on a few, pivotal underlying issues, they found the case should not have been dismissed. And they simply remanded the case back to the trial court for “additional proceedings.”
Most of the area being developed lies within one of the designated flood areas shown above. But note the date on the map: 2007. Eight years after Harvey, FEMA is still updating such maps. Early indications are that flood zones will expand 50-100%.
After Hurricane Harvey struck Texas in 2017, the City of Houston amended its floodplain regulation to increase the elevation requirements for construction in a floodplain. A developer (The Commons of Lake Houston) sued the City for “inverse condemnation,” alleging that the amendments caused a regulatory taking of the developer’s property under the Texas Constitution.
The trial court agreed with the developer. But the City appealed. And the court of appeals reversed that trial court’s decision. It agreed with the City and dismissed the case.
The appeals court said that the developer could not establish a valid takings claim because the City amended the ordinance as a valid exercise of its police power and to comply with the federal flood-insurance program. The developer then appealed to the Supreme Court.
What is Inverse Condemnation?
Inverse condemnation refers to a situation where the government takes or damages private property for public use without formally using its power of eminent domain—and without providing just compensation to the property owner.
In simpler terms, the government does something that effectively takes away or reduces the value of your property, but doesn’t officially “take” it through normal legal channels, i.e., condemnation.
So the property owner must sue the government to get compensated, which is why it’s called inverse condemnation. It’s the opposite of the usual process used by government to take someone’s property.
Floodplain Regulation Changed Before Development Completed
The Commons of Lake Houston first began developing a 3,300-acre residential community near Lake Houston in 1993.
The Supreme Court opinion says that, “Focusing on one phase at a time, it subdivided, platted, and cleared the raw land in sections, adding streets and utilities and then selling empty lots to buyers and builders who design and construct the homes.”
“This case involves a section called The Crossing, a 300-plus-acre area that includes many of the project’s most valuable lots. The Commons’ business plan relied on revenue from the earlier phases to finance the subsequent phases and ultimately produce profits from the last phases, including The Crossing,” said the Supreme Court.
Crossing at the Commons of Lake Houston. Compare to colored map above showing floodplains.
“The Crossing’s lakefront and lakeview lots are more valuable than most, but they also lie in areas colloquially referred to as the 100- and 500-year floodplains,” continued the Supreme Court.
After the City approved the developer’s initial plans, Hurricane Harvey struck in 2017. The City of Houston changed its floodplain regulation in anticipation of changes from FEMA concerning the depth and width of floodplains.
Before Harvey, the City had initially approved the developer’s plans based on slabs being one foot above the 100-year floodplain. But in 2018, the City amended its code to require foundations at least two feet above the 500-year floodplain.
How Regulation Changes Impacted Developer
Justice Jeffrey Boyd, speaking for the Supreme Court, wrote, “Commons asserted that the amendment increased the required slab elevations in The Crossing by an average of 5.5 feet and, as a result, rendered 557 of the 669 total lots (and over seventy-five percent of the total acreage) undevelopable.”
“Because of the new elevation requirement, The Commons alleges it had to cancel development and sales contracts, lost $4.4 million in revenue and $1.8 million in bond reimbursements, and had to borrow over $1 million to cover cash flow. Ultimately, The Commons asserts, the amendment destroyed its expected profits from the entire 3,300-acre project.”
“The Commons filed this suit against the City in 2020, asserting that the amended ordinance caused a regulatory taking for which the Texas Constitution requires reasonable compensation,” said Boyd.
Underlying Issues
Like many legal cases, this one involved arguments over procedural elements and precedents:
Did the City actually deny a permit or did it just not approve one?
Does the City have the right to insist on approving plans for specific buildings when the developer does not actually build buildings? (The developer sells lots, not buildings.)
Does the City’s governmental immunity apply to this case?
Does a change in a regulation for the public good constitute a taking?
Did the City actually damage the Commons’ property?
Does the City have the right to promote public safety and minimize flood losses?
Is the City’s exercise of its powers in this case compensable?
Did the City justifiably deny the Commons’ anticipated profits?
Had the City not increased elevation requirements, would anyone have been able to obtain flood insurance from the Federal government?
Boyd references all these issues. But the court’s 30-page opinion doesn’t hinge on all of them. It focused mainly on those that constituted reversible errors in the appeals court decision, i.e., whether the:
City’s actions constituted a taking of the developer’s property
Developer sued prematurely
Developer lacks standing to assert them
The 30-page opinion will make fascinating reading for anyone:
Who owns property in or near a floodplain
Seeking to develop property in a floodplain
Affected by others developing property in floodplains.
What Court Did and Didn’t Conclude
In the end, the Court concluded the Commons:
Can assert a valid regulatory-takings claim even though the City amended the ordinance as “a valid exercise of its police power and to ensure compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program.”
Had a claim that is “ripe for adjudication.”
Has standing to assert its claim.
The Court did not address whether the Commons has, in fact, asserted a valid regulatory-takings claim under several different precedents or the Texas Constitution’s “damaged” provision.
In the end, the Supreme Court simply reversed the Appeals Court judgment that summarily dismissed the Commons’ claim. Then, the Court sent the case back to the trial court “for further proceedings.”
Resident Reaction
I called a Commons resident to discuss the community’s reaction to the Supreme Court decision. She summed it up in two words: “It’s tragic.”
She said that when she and her husband bought their property, the developer gave them assurances that the land in question would be used only for parks. She also said. “We were told by salesmen that there would never be anything down there. Now they’re taking away the nature.”
“In my opinion, there’s not one person out here that’s happy to know it would be built up like that,” she added.
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Commons-Flood-Plain-1.jpg?fit=1136%2C860&ssl=18601136adminadmin2025-03-24 14:42:462025-03-25 10:59:59Supreme Court Punts Floodplain Regulation Case Back to Trial Court
Is it more economic to permit floodplain developments or mitigate them after floods?
3/26/25 – From a public policy perspective, is it more economical to permit floodplain developments or mitigate them after floods? I asked ChatGPT that question this morning. It was consistent with year’s of research on flooding.
The issue pertains directly to posts in the last two days about a proposed development called the Crossing at the Commons of Lake Houston. After being required by the City of Houston to raise the elevation of slabs two feet above the 500-year floodplain, the developer challenged the City all the way to the Texas Supreme Court.
Policymakers, urban planners, and economists wrestle with this question of prevention vs. correction all the time. The short answer: It’s generally more economical to restrict floodplain development than to pay for damages later. Here’s why.
Cost Comparison: Prevention vs. Mitigation
Upfront Development in Floodplains (Short-Term Gain)
A scientific study published in the journal Nature Sustainability found similar results. Every dollar spent acquiring flood-prone land (a specific kind of mitigation) avoids five dollars in damages.
Examples of Mitigation Costs
Smart Prevention Strategies (More Economic in the Long Run)
In the past, Houston allowed extensive floodplain development. As a consequence, it faced massive losses during Hurricane Harvey. Post-flood buyouts and infrastructure repairs have cost billions. The estimated costs of Harvey adjusted for inflation now approach $160 billion.
“While development in floodplains may seem cheaper at first, the long-term economic, environmental, and social costs almost always outweigh the initial savings,” according to ChatGPT.
The developer reaps the profit, but taxpayers bear the costs.
Houston and Harris County
Looking at Houston and Harris County as opposed to national figures, evidence again suggests that proactive floodplain management is far more cost-effective than reactive mitigation.
The enormous expenses associated with post-flood recovery—illustrated by the massive losses from Hurricane Harvey—underscore the economic and social benefits of investing in prevention. Not only does prevention save money, it also helps protect community well-being, property values, and local infrastructure.
Houston and Harris County have adopted several preventive measures. Chief among them:
Floodplain Development Regulations:
Houston enforces stringent regulations for construction within flood-prone areas. The city’s Floodplain Management Office oversees permitting to ensure compliance with the floodplain ordinance and FEMA regulations. Notably, new structures are required to be elevated at least two feet above the 500-year flood elevation to mitigate potential flood damage.
Home Buyout Programs:
The Harris County Flood Control District administers voluntary home buyout programs aimed at relocating residents from high-risk flood zones. These programs have successfully acquired and demolished numerous properties, restoring approximately 1,300 acres to their natural floodplain functions and preventing future flood damages.
Such investments in flood mitigation have proven to be economically beneficial not just nationally, but in Houston, too. Studies indicate that for every $1 spent on mitigation, there is an average savings of $6 in future disaster costs.
$2.5 Billion 2018 Flood Bond
In 2018, Harris County voters passed a $2.5 billion flood bond. While primarily aimed at correcting past problems, it will also prevent future flooding. But so far, most of the money has been spent in Low-to-Moderate Income areas. That leaves more affluent areas, including the Commons of Lake Houston, with elevated flood risk.
All this underscores the need for accurate, up-to-date flood maps.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/26/25
2766 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
What Happens When Flood Maps Don’t Illustrate True Risk
3/25/25 – Almost eight years after Hurricane Harvey and a massive region-wide effort to update flood maps, FEMA still features maps on its website based on decades-old data that don’t come close to showing true flood risk. The old maps cause confusion among homebuyers who may not understand their limitations. And that helps developers pursue and profit from risky ventures in floodplains.
Three-Year Delay for New Maps and Still Counting
FEMA has yet to release maps based on recent Atlas-14 data developed after Hurricane Harvey. Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) anticipated release of FEMA’s new preliminary maps three years ago and release of the final maps by now. See the timeline below published in 2020.
I requested the release date for the new maps from Harris County and Federal officials. However, they did not respond.
Delays Contribute to Confusion about Safety of New Developments
The delays have contributed to confusion about the safety of new developments near or in floodplains.
Take, for instance, the lawsuit between the City of Houston and one of the area’s largest developers. According to a Texas Supreme Court decision released last Friday, the Signorelli Companies want to develop more than 500 lots near the San Jacinto East Fork as part of The Commons of Lake Houston.
Plats show most of the lots outside the current 100-year floodplain. But floodplains will reportedly expand by 50-100% when the new flood maps come out. At that point, most if not all the lots will likely be deep in the floodplain.
So, the City imposed higher elevation requirements for homes in anticipation of the new flood maps. That triggered a property-rights lawsuit by the developer, which claimed the City’s requirements made the property “undevelopable.”
Sometimes We Just Never Learn
Sometimes, it feels as if we just never learn. I understand a company’s desire to make money from its land. But unsuspecting homebuyers could lose their life savings. Worse, more people could die.
Flood insurance is becoming unaffordable for many. Insurance companies are fleeing high-risk areas.
And we haven’t even mentioned yet the costs of flood mitigation, disaster relief, buyouts, and restoration of the natural ecosystems – that already protect people for free.
In my opinion, for the public good, some land just shouldn’t be built on.
The Commons of Lake Houston Proposal
The flood map for the Commons area on the East Fork was last updated in 2007. It is based on data acquired after Tropical Storm Allison in 2001. New Atlas 14 rainfall data is 30-40% higher than previous estimates and represents the current best efforts of scientists.
The map below shows the extent of those 100- and 500-year floodplains in 2007 maps as dotted lines superimposed over a proposed new section of the Commons called the Crossing.
Two Pictures Worth 2,000 Woods
These two pictures, sent to me by a nearby resident of an existing home on higher ground in the Commons, illustrate the problem.
Think such a flood can’t happen again in your lifetime? That Harvey was a thousand-year storm?
It almost happened again in May 2024 during a no-name storm a month before the start of hurricane season. The screen capture below shows historical HCFCD data from a gage just upstream from the Commons. Note the last three entries.
That no-name storm produced flooding almost five feet higher than Imelda and only about four feet lower than Harvey. It was the second highest flood at that location since HCFCD started keeping records!
Will We Repeat Mistakes of the Past?
The thing about floodplains is that they keep growing with upstream development – especially as other developers push into wetlands near rivers and streams. And the area upstream from the Commons is growing very quickly.
At some point (like now), it may make more sense to donate this land to an organization such as the Bayou Land Conservancy, Houston Parks, or Texas Parks and Wildlife. That would offer the developer some tax benefits. That could also help protect the public, protect lenders, help hold down insurance rates, provide recreation, and reduce future mitigation costs. It would even likely add value to homes on higher ground.
Posted by Bob Rehak based on 3/25/25
2765 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
Supreme Court Punts Floodplain Regulation Case Back to Trial Court
3/24/25 – On March 21, 2025, the Supreme Court of Texas ruled on a long-running lawsuit between a developer and the City of Houston over floodplain regulation. The Supreme Court reversed an Appeals Court judgement, which had dismissed the developer’s claims against the City, thus keeping the case alive.
The developer argued that the City’s changes to floodplain regulation after Hurricane Harvey made their river-front property “undevelopable” and therefore were an unconstitutional taking of their property.
The case could have far-reaching implications for property rights advocates, developers, the enforcement of floodplain regulations, building codes, public safety, availability of flood insurance, and more.
However, the case also involves many specific issues, not yet decided, that could limit those ramifications. The Supreme Court acknowledged validity to the claims of both parties.
After ruling on a few, pivotal underlying issues, they found the case should not have been dismissed. And they simply remanded the case back to the trial court for “additional proceedings.”
Background: Developer Claims “Inverse Condemnation”
After Hurricane Harvey struck Texas in 2017, the City of Houston amended its floodplain regulation to increase the elevation requirements for construction in a floodplain. A developer (The Commons of Lake Houston) sued the City for “inverse condemnation,” alleging that the amendments caused a regulatory taking of the developer’s property under the Texas Constitution.
The trial court agreed with the developer. But the City appealed. And the court of appeals reversed that trial court’s decision. It agreed with the City and dismissed the case.
The appeals court said that the developer could not establish a valid takings claim because the City amended the ordinance as a valid exercise of its police power and to comply with the federal flood-insurance program. The developer then appealed to the Supreme Court.
What is Inverse Condemnation?
Inverse condemnation refers to a situation where the government takes or damages private property for public use without formally using its power of eminent domain—and without providing just compensation to the property owner.
In simpler terms, the government does something that effectively takes away or reduces the value of your property, but doesn’t officially “take” it through normal legal channels, i.e., condemnation.
So the property owner must sue the government to get compensated, which is why it’s called inverse condemnation. It’s the opposite of the usual process used by government to take someone’s property.
Floodplain Regulation Changed Before Development Completed
The Commons of Lake Houston first began developing a 3,300-acre residential community near Lake Houston in 1993.
The Supreme Court opinion says that, “Focusing on one phase at a time, it subdivided, platted, and cleared the raw land in sections, adding streets and utilities and then selling empty lots to buyers and builders who design and construct the homes.”
“This case involves a section called The Crossing, a 300-plus-acre area that includes many of the project’s most valuable lots. The Commons’ business plan relied on revenue from the earlier phases to finance the subsequent phases and ultimately produce profits from the last phases, including The Crossing,” said the Supreme Court.
“The Crossing’s lakefront and lakeview lots are more valuable than most, but they also lie in areas colloquially referred to as the 100- and 500-year floodplains,” continued the Supreme Court.
After the City approved the developer’s initial plans, Hurricane Harvey struck in 2017. The City of Houston changed its floodplain regulation in anticipation of changes from FEMA concerning the depth and width of floodplains.
Before Harvey, the City had initially approved the developer’s plans based on slabs being one foot above the 100-year floodplain. But in 2018, the City amended its code to require foundations at least two feet above the 500-year floodplain.
How Regulation Changes Impacted Developer
Justice Jeffrey Boyd, speaking for the Supreme Court, wrote, “Commons asserted that the amendment increased the required slab elevations in The Crossing by an average of 5.5 feet and, as a result, rendered 557 of the 669 total lots (and over seventy-five percent of the total acreage) undevelopable.”
“Because of the new elevation requirement, The Commons alleges it had to cancel development and sales contracts, lost $4.4 million in revenue and $1.8 million in bond reimbursements, and had to borrow over $1 million to cover cash flow. Ultimately, The Commons asserts, the amendment destroyed its expected profits from the entire 3,300-acre project.”
“The Commons filed this suit against the City in 2020, asserting that the amended ordinance caused a regulatory taking for which the Texas Constitution requires reasonable compensation,” said Boyd.
Underlying Issues
Like many legal cases, this one involved arguments over procedural elements and precedents:
Boyd references all these issues. But the court’s 30-page opinion doesn’t hinge on all of them. It focused mainly on those that constituted reversible errors in the appeals court decision, i.e., whether the:
The 30-page opinion will make fascinating reading for anyone:
What Court Did and Didn’t Conclude
In the end, the Court concluded the Commons:
The Court did not address whether the Commons has, in fact, asserted a valid regulatory-takings claim under several different precedents or the Texas Constitution’s “damaged” provision.
In the end, the Supreme Court simply reversed the Appeals Court judgment that summarily dismissed the Commons’ claim. Then, the Court sent the case back to the trial court “for further proceedings.”
Resident Reaction
I called a Commons resident to discuss the community’s reaction to the Supreme Court decision. She summed it up in two words: “It’s tragic.”
She said that when she and her husband bought their property, the developer gave them assurances that the land in question would be used only for parks. She also said. “We were told by salesmen that there would never be anything down there. Now they’re taking away the nature.”
“In my opinion, there’s not one person out here that’s happy to know it would be built up like that,” she added.
We haven’t heard the last of this yet.
For More Information
Read the actual court documents and more:
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/24/25
2764 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.