Constitutional amendment elections in Texas, such as the one coming up Nov. 3, rarely generate much excitement among voters. But the upcoming election includes one issue that has been a hot button with the public the past couple of years — eminent domain.

Eminent domain is the power used by a governmental entity to acquire private property when it’s deemed necessary for the greater public good.

The purpose of Proposition 11 is to ensure private property is taken strictly for public use, not for economic development. The issue made national headlines in 2005 when a group of homeowners in New London, Conn., fought a move by the city to acquire their property for a project to complement a multimillion dollar pharmaceutical research facility.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided in favor of the city, essentially saying local governments have the right to take land for economic development. Some North Texans also got a scare in 2008 when they received notices from a company operated by billionaire T. Boone Pickens informing them a small water district had been formed in the Texas Panhandle that would grant authority to condemn part of their land for an energy pipeline/transmission line.

The Supreme Court ruling sent states scrambling to pass laws to protect individual property owners. Texas is one of 40 states that have since passed such laws.

Proposition 11 would spell out the conditions under which private property could be taken by eminent domain. The amendment says property can be taken only with adequate compensation and must be “owned, used and enjoyed” by the public at large.

Critics of Proposition 11 say it is unnecessary because the Texas Legislature has already enacted laws to protect property owners.

Jody Withers, communications director for State Sen. Craig Estes, R-Wichita Falls, said the proposition would “put into the Constitution some things we already have in state law.”

He said that’s important because a constitutional amendment is harder to change than a law.

“Proposition 11 is a good step toward reform,” Withers said. But he said Estes will try again in the 2011 Legislature to create even stronger protection for property owners.

He pointed out that Estes’ Senate Bill 18 died when it went to the House.

“The main thing it provided was compensation for loss of assets,” he said.

The senate bill would also have required bona fide offers to property owners up-front, good faith negotiations and protection for the market value of an individual’s remaining portion of property.

“Proposition 11 is a step in the right direction,” Withers said.

State Rep. David Farabee, D-Wichita Falls, agrees.

“Proposition 11 is a big step forward in protecting private property rights,” he said. “Current law allows a governmental entity to take private property in an entire neighborhood on the grounds that over 50 percent of the neighborhood is blighted. In many cases the whole plat is then sold to a private interest in the name of economic development. Honest businesses and property owners who have maintained their property in these areas have little protection in these cases. Proposition 11 protects these private property owners.”

State Rep. Rick Hardcastle, R-Vernon, said Proposition 11 is just a start.

“It’s the first of our property right initiatives we’ll do over next few years,” he said.

Hardcastle said he likes the extra protections in Estes’ senate bill and predicted the legislation will come up again in 2011.

“We’ve got to get appraisals closer to the actual value of property” to be condemned by eminent domain, he said.

He said efforts to create the now-defunct Trans-Texas Corridor pointed out Texas laws have some disparities in obtaining right-of-way land.

Hardcastle said he is not aware of much opposition to Proposition 11 among state lawmakers.