Today is the deadline for comments to TxDOT SH 46 Project in Comal County

Trey Wilson San Antonio Texas Real Estate Attorney, Trey Wilson Real Estate Lawyer in San Antonio wrote:

Today, March 14, 2016, is the deadline for the public and stakeholders to submit written comments to the Texas Department of Transportation's preliminary plans for "improving" the 7-mile stretch of SH 46 from Bulverde Road to FM 3159 (Smithson Valley Road) in southern Comal County.  The preliminary plans follow an initial study performed by TxDOT and its consultants.

The greater SH 46/US Hwy. 281 vicinity is being considered  for an ambitious transportation Project that may include expansion of SH 46 from two to six lanes in the area of the City of Bulverde and Smithson Valley High School. Also contemplated is construction of sidewalks and bicycle accommodations along the Project area and the insertion of raised concrete medians . These medians would largely prevent left hand turns on the stretch of SH 46, except at major intersections, which would  be controlled by traffic lights.

Expansion of the highway Right-of-Way will necessarily include acquisition of private property through condemnation/eminent domain, and possibly re-alignment of roadways intersecting with SH 46 in the Project area.

TxDOT has done a good job of getting the word out, and has set-up a dedicated website and an email list for interested parties to receive Project information, news and updates. 

A public meeting was held on March 3, 2016, and TxDOT presentation materials from that meeting may be viewed here.  

Following the public meeting, TxDOT called for public comment to its plans -- all of which are still preliminary.  Those comments may be submitted by email to: sh46info@gmail.com or by mail to:

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)                    

SH 46 Improvement Project                          

P.O. Box 5459                                                               

Austin, Texas 78763                   

I submitted a lengthy comment last week on behalf of a client who owns a relatively large property in the Project area. The following are our "General Comments" to the Project:

(i)     the Project budget has been a moving target. Cost estimates from as low as $40M (which presently appears as the combined total of projects 0121507027 and 021401044 on the TxDOT “Project Tracker” website) to $66M (which was discussed when we met in February 2016) to $77M (which was identified at the March 2016 public meeting as an “Early Construction estimate”) have all been publicized by TxDOT. The public, the legislators responsible for balancing the State budget and TxDOT’s financial partners in the Project all deserve transparency in representations concerning the true cost of the Project;

(ii)     the Project’s geographic boundaries have also been somewhat elusive. Initial reports placed the western reach of the Project at Spring Branch Rd. Currently-published information (including the TxDOT project tracker website) extends that boundary to Bulverde Rd., while schematics presented for public view show plans for even further extension west on SH 46 to a point of “tapering” that almost reaches Anhalt Rd. Transparency and dissemination of accurate information about the Project’s boundaries are critical for meaningful public input and understanding of the Project;

(iii)     the 6 lane configuration is vastly more expensive than the original publicized plan for expansion to 4 lanes, and requires acquisition of significantly more Right-of-Way (“ROW”) through condemnation of private property. In many areas (including the area of the Farm) existing TxDOT-owned ROW would be sufficient to expand SH 46 to 4 lanes, so the cost of acquiring additional ROW could be avoided entirely. While traffic counts on SH 46 in the areas immediately adjacent to or east of US 281 may justify 6 lanes, a 4 lane configuration is more than ample for areas that are several miles from that intersection (including the area of the Farm);

(iv)   the proposed, widespread use of medians in the Project imposes serious accessibility challenges for many properties situated along SH 46. Requiring U-turns by large vehicles and preventing left-hand turns into businesses and residences will increase traffic dangers, negatively impact businesses that are currently accessible to both east and west-bound traffic, and promote congestion at U-turn points.  The portions of US 281 in far north Bexar County (between Evans Rd. and Marshall Rd.) are a debacle, and TxDOT should not duplicate those traffic circulation nightmares on SH 46;

(v)      as an alternative/complement to the Project, TxDOT and its partners should consider near-term development/expansion of other access corridors to US 281 and/or Bexar County from southern Comal County west of US 281. A fundamental flaw in the Project’s global objective is failure to include any accommodation for diverting traffic away from SH46 west of US 281 or the 46/281 intersection.  Rather, the Project would promote traffic congestion on SH46 by ignoring other practical, necessary and less-costly roadway expansions which would promote traffic-flow away from the already-congested intersection.  For example, Blanco Rd. south of SH46 has seen tremendous development of residential subdivisions. Yet, despite this rapid growth, and Blanco’s existing length to a terminus point located just north of downtown San Antonio, no viable plan presently exists for expanding Blanco Rd. north of Camp Bullis, or creating an east-west route from Blanco to US 281 between Borgfeld Rd. (to the south) and SH 46. Similarly, and as acknowledged in the City of Bulverde Transportation Master Plan, Bulverde Rd. south of SH46 (near the City of Bulverde) is under-burdened and ripe for expansion – especially as the City and its Chamber of Commerce actively promote increased development and commerce. At a minimum, present consideration should be given to expanding Blanco Rd. and Bulverde Rd. as viable thoroughfares, and investigation of connecting Bulverde Rd. with Spring Branch Rd. as a single north-south corridor is warranted;

(vi)  incorporation of bicycle lanes and pedestrian paths into the Project are superfluous. Inclusion of these features contemplates (and would promote) modes of travel that are unsafe and out of place on a state highway whose traffic volume is predicted to increase manifold in the coming decades;

(vii)    the Project’s stated objective of improving sight distances by “flattening” curves in the existing configuration of SH46 are disparately applied in publicized schematics. While TxDOT literature promotes the benefits of acquiring additional ROW to improve sight distance, numerous existing, sharp curves do not appear slated for expansion/improvement. If improved sight distance is a valid objective, it should be applied with equal impact along all areas of SH 46 whose existing terrain or curves endanger motorists;

(viii)   the SH 46 corridor encompasses numerous sensitive environmental features, including waterways (streams, creeks and tributaries), century oaks, limestone outcrop and other geological features, Hill Country terrain and groundwater recharge areas. TxDOT should proceed with extreme concern for preserving the environmental integrity of the Project area, and the numerous wildlife species that inhabit it;

(ix)     the area of the SH 46 corridor is of significant historical and archeological value to the State of Texas, and numerous artifacts from Native Americans and German settlors abound in the Project area.  Arrowheads and other evidence of Native American life are also frequently found in the Project area; and

(x)      the Project area, including SH 46, itself, is prone to serious flooding. The area has experienced significant flood events within the past year, and on numerous prior occasions. The addition of expanded impervious cover will promote storm water runoff, and present increased drainage problems in an area that already suffers from a lack of flood mitigation. While the Project plans call for concrete drainage features near the intersection of US 281 and SH 46, there appears to be no accommodation for the additional storm water that will affect the eastern and western extremities of the Project area.

If you live or work near the Project area, please participate in the public comment period, and let TxDOT know your thoughts. We are fortunate to live in a nation and State where public input can be expressed and will be heard!

This Blog now on the State Bar of Texas blogs page

Trey Wilson San Antonio Texas Real Estate Attorney, Trey Wilson Real Estate Lawyer in San Antonio wrote:

I'm very pleased to announce that this blog has been  added to the State Bar of Texas Law Blogs page and list of syndicated blogs for posts to be featured on Texas Bar Today.

Be sure to check out all of the Texas attorney blogs on the list! There's a great variety of blogs and writing styles that span the full spectrum of law and life as a lawyer.

Which Texas Court Level is Appropriate for your Real Estate Lawsuit?

Trey Wilson San Antonio Texas Real Estate Attorney, Trey Wilson Real Estate Lawyer in San Antonio wrote:

Filing or defending a lawsuit related to real estate (or any lawsuit for that matter) can be overwhelming. Many parties to real estate suits are first-time litigants, with scarce knowledge about the distinctions between Texas courts, or the intricacies of how the various court levels interact. 

Understanding the complex web of the various court levels in Texas -- and their respective jurisdictional limits -- is essential to a litigant's ability to make informed decisions about a lawsuit, including decisions relating to where the suit should be filed.  The following presents a very general summary of the types of real-estate related suits handed by Texas district courts, county courts, and justice courts: 

DISTRICT COURTS

District courts are the primary trial courts in Texas, and are courts of "general jurisdiction." Article V, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution extends a district court’s potential jurisdiction to “all actions” but makes such jurisdiction relative by excluding any matters in which exclusive, appellate, or original jurisdiction is conferred by law upon some other court. It can be said that Texas district courts generally have original jurisdiction in the following categories of real estate-related lawsuits: 

(i) all suits for title to land;

(ii) all suits for enforcement of liens on land; 

(iii) suits to determine the existence, nature and scope of easements;

(iv) suits (including divorce actions) to determine community property interests in real estate;

(v) suits to determine the validity and effect of deeds or there instruments affecting title to land; 
(vi) suits related to the enforcement of contracts to buy or sell real property; 
(vii) suits to remove encumbrances to title to real estate; and
(viii) suits among joint owners of real estate for partition.

Appeals from judgments of the district courts in civil lawsuit are to the courts of appeals. 

COUNTY COURTS

County courts generally have appellate jurisdiction (usually by trial de novo) over cases tried originally in the justice courts. This appellate jurisdiction includes cases in which a Judgement for eviction has been entered in the Justice Court (an "Eviction Appeal").

Original and appellate judgments of the county courts may be appealed to the courts of appeals. 

JUSTICE COURTS
Texas Justice courts generally have exclusive jurisdiction of civil matters when the amount in controversy does not exceed $200, and concurrent jurisdiction with the county courts when the amount in controversy exceeds $200 but does not exceed $10,000. 

Justice courts also have exclusive jurisdiction over forcible entry and detainer (eviction) cases. This means that all eviction suits must be filed in the Justice Court governing the county and precinct where the real property made the subject of the eviction suit is located.

Trials in justice courts are not “of record.” Appeals from these courts (including in eviction suits) are by trial de novo (i.e. "anew" and as if the first trial had not occurred) in the constitutional county court or the county court at law.

Property Tax Burden Threatens Texans, Causes Concern

Texas homeowners’ plea: Do mess with taxes.  

By Kenric Ward / Note: This article was published by watchdog.org

SIGNS OF THE TIMES: Protests over soaring property tax bills are breaking out across Texas.

Texans are tiring of the bait and switch on taxes.

Without an income tax, but with the sixth-highest property tax burden in the country, the Lone Star State is no longer a low-cost haven for homeowners.

Property taxes have more than doubled over the past 13 years, rising 63 percent faster than population and inflation combined, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. And the hits just keep on coming.

“The Legislature has cut property taxes four times and no one felt it,” says state Rep. Dennis Bonnen, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

The reason? Local schools and governments aggressively hike property assessments every year, flouting market realities and making a mockery of “flat” tax rates.

“My neighborhood (assessed values) went up $100,000 on every house,” recalled Cheryl Johnson, of Galveston. Those “disproportionate increases” prompted her to run for, and win, the job of county tax assessor.

Across the state, more Texans are protesting their property tax bills. Nearly 90,000 Bexar County residents filed protests last year – up 70 percent over 2012. Documented challenges can knock values down a few thousand dollars, translating into savings of a few hundred dollars. Homeowners wage these battles annually because assessments bounce back up the following year.

On Wednesday, taxpayers lined up to complain to a Senate Select Committee. More than half the 300-plus attendees were local government officials, along with well-coiffed lobbyists keeping tabs on the simmering tax rebellion.

VIDEO: Senate panel hears property tax complaints

Bonnen, Johnson and others have pitched proposals to ease the pain on Texas property owners:

PRICE PAID: Johnson favors a one-time assessment based on a property’s sales price. “End of conversation. End of protest,” she says. Johnson sees another benefit to this Proposition 13-style freeze that harks back to the landmark initiative in California: “You save $400 million in (county) appraiser costs” and remove subjectivity from the equation, she says 

TABOR: A Taxpayer Bill of Rights would restrict government revenue increases to a combination of population growth and inflation. The cap could be exceeded only if residents vote to raise it in a referendum. “That’s the ultimate in a democratic process,” says Bonnen, R-Angleton.

The newly expanded homestead exemption shields just 20 percent of the tax bill, sometimes less. Cities are not required to apply the full discount, and most don’t. Austin, for example, sets its exemption at just 6 percent.

Dale Craymer, president of the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association, favors limits on revenues.

“When the Legislature tries to limit value by a homestead exemption or appraisal caps, jurisdictions just raise the tax rate. When districts want to avoid tax rate increases, there is great suspicion that they put pressure on the appraisal districts to raise values,” Craymer told Watchdog.org.

“Either way, they get all the dollars they want,” he said. “The only effective way to limit property taxes is to limit the growth in revenues from one year to the next.”

San Antonio Councilman Ron Nirenberg, like local leaders across Texas, says his city needs evermore tax revenue for “investment.”  "We’re falling further behind on infrastructure. Growth is outstripping revenue,” he told Watchdog. The growth is fueled in part by San Antonio’s ongoing, expansive annexation agenda.

Nirenberg acknowledges that the Alamo City is receiving record state appropriations for transportation projects. And the Bexar County appraiser is raising taxable values on existing properties an average of 10.7 percent this year. The San Antonio Board of Realtors reported that the average home price rose 5.4 percent from January to November 2015 — half the rate of increase pegged by the county appraiser for 2016.

Offering no homestead exemption protection to its residents, San Antonio expects to reap a $25 million tax windfall through higher appraised values.

Still, it’s not enough. The city plans to take on more debt by floating another nine-figure bond issue in 2017. Financing would come from future property tax revenue.

“Property taxes are growing far faster than Texans’ paychecks,” said Peggy Venable, policy and legislative director at the Americans for Prosperity Foundation of Texas. “The rate local governments can increase property taxes should be lowered to no more than 5 percent, and voter approval required to exceed that amount.”

Could Texas be morphing into a high-tax state like New Jersey?

Jonathan Williams, a policy expert at the American Legislative Exchange Council, noted that in 1965 the Garden State had no income tax or sales tax, and very high property taxes. “Now New Jersey has some of the highest taxes on all three. Failure to control spending is the Achilles’ heel,” he said.

The co-author of the report, “Rich States, Poor States,” warned against any proposals that simply shift tax burdens.

“There’s risk in any approach by states to lower local property taxes. Spending must equal taxation and competitiveness requires property tax restraint,” Williams said. “Subsidizing spenders is a moral hazard.”

Kenric Ward writes for the Texas Bureau of Watchdog.org. Contact him at kward@watchdog.org. 

Are You a Landlord or Property Manager in Need of a Real Estate Lawyer in San Antonio, Texas?

Trey Wilson San Antonio Texas Real Estate Attorney, Trey Wilson Real Estate Lawyer in San Antonio wrote:

Check out my new video short for Landlord-Tenant law. Call me if you are a Landlord who needs legal assistance the San Antonio, Texas area.

TREC Adopts New Form for "Information About Broker Services" - to Take Effect on 2/1/16

Trey Wilson San Antonio Texas Real Estate Attorney, Trey Wilson Real Estate Lawyer in San Antonio wrote:

The Texas Real Estate Commission met on November 2, 2015, and approved all of the proposed changes to the promulgated TREC contract forms. Use of these new contract forms will become mandatory for all TREC licensees on January 1, 2016.

In addition, the Commissioners adopted a new form for the "Information About Broker Services" disclosure.  The new form will go into effect on February 1, 2016, and can be found HERE.  The "old" IABS form was adopted in October 2011. 

The new form contains clear consumer notices related to the duties of brokers-- and to the respective parties -- as follows:

A BROKER’S MINIMUM DUTIES REQUIRED BY LAW (A client is the person or party that the broker represents): 

• Put the interests of the client above all others, including the broker’s own interests;  

• Inform the client of any material information about the property or transaction received by the broker;  

• Answer the client’s questions and present any offer to or counter-offer from the client; and 

• Treat all parties to a real estate transaction honestly and fairly. 

 The new form also contains a written recommendation that agreements with brokers should be in writing:

0. TO AVOID DISPUTES, ALL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN YOU AND A BROKER SHOULD BE IN WRITING AND CLEARLY ESTABLISH:

   
   

   • The broker’s duties and responsibilities to you, and your obligations under the representation agreement. 

   
   

   •  Who will pay the broker for services provided to you, when payment will be made and how the payment will be calculated.

Another significant feature is a space for real estate licensees to provide all parties with contact information (as opposed to just a signature)

LICENSE HOLDER CONTACT INFORMATION: This notice is being provided for information purposes. It does not create an obligation for you to use the broker’s services. Please acknowledge receipt of this notice below and retain a copy for your records.