The jury trial concerning Missouri City’s purchase price of the Quail Valley golf course property has been postponed for the third time. Originally scheduled to begin the last week of January, it was moved to Feb.2 but has now been postponed for an undetermined amount of time because the judge, Fort Bend County Court at Law No. 4 Judge R.H. “Sandy” Bielstein, is sick.
Once it starts, the trial should last about two weeks.
In March 2008, the city filed condemnation proceedings to take 392 acres of golf course property – two 18-hole and two 9-hole courses, a club house, maintenance building and driving range – from Quail Valley Country Club, owned by Renaissance Golf Group LLC.
QVCC had stopped operating three of the courses, the city said, and one of the club owners acknowledged the property was experiencing annual operating losses of about $1.5 million.
Three months later, Fort Bend County Court at Law No. 4 Judge R.H. “Sandy” Bielstein appointed three special commissioners in the case, who ruled that fair market value of the acreage was $3.1 million. The city deposited $3.1 million with the Fort Bend County Clerk’s office, and began operating the property as its own.
At Missouri City Council’s direction, the city has been renovating the property and has opened one course to the public.
But QVCC argued in a condemnation suit that Texas law doesn’t allow a government entity “to condemn a going business concern and utilize the property acquired for the same business purpose for which the property was being used at the time of the condemnation.”
Further, QVCC argued there was no required “public necessity” for condemning the property, an act it has called “merely a pretext to confer a private benefit on particular private parties, including the mayor and a number of city council members.” Missouri City Mayor Allen Owen and councilmen Jerry Wyatt, Brett Kolaja and Buddy Jimerson all live in Quail Valley.
Bielstein has ruled that the city had the right to take the property by eminent domain, and the remaining issue is the amount the city paid for it.
It is unlikely that the city would lose the property, but could end up paying more than the $3.1 million.
“We feel confident that we paid fair value for the golf course and that is how we are moving forward,” said Missouri City’s Communication Director Barbara Brescian.
2. February 2010 at 12:47 pm
Leave it to some to make it about the national politics, rather than their local mayor. I wouldn’t worry too much doscentavos, these cases are always appealed out of the jurisdiction. I would predict at some point the city will give them a settlement when it all dies down. It is going to cost the residents a great deal more than the 3.1 mentioned and probably already has given the fees lawyers, consultants, courts and the like all charge these days, but that’s another cash cow and another story.
2. February 2010 at 12:32 pm
“Fort Bend County Court at Law No. 4 Judge R.H. “Sandy” Bielstein appointed three special commissioners in the case, who ruled that fair market value of the acreage was $3.1 million.”
Expect a verdict in that range. Which is good for the past owners, as it would be valued lower with the Obama recession in full swing with estimated layoffs forecast for Houston in the oil patch @ 70,000 due to the Obama tax hikes for the energy industry.
2. February 2010 at 12:18 pm
Wouldn’t it have been more correct for the Judge to say that the remaining issue(s) is(are) the amount the City paid for it… and that the citizens of MoCity will pay and pay and pay and pay. These losses that the Course is suffering right now were forecast before the Course was Eminent Domained in the evaluation given the Course by the National Golf Foundation. I’m trying to decide whether it was just poor planning, a mistake, or some other more significant reason that Missouri City voters were not informed about that, especially before they voted on the Bond Issue.
2. February 2010 at 5:51 am
“Bielstein has ruled that the city had the right to take the property by eminent domain, and the remaining issue is the amount the city paid for it.”
for those who want to dwell in the past.
2. February 2010 at 4:35 am
Its good that the article is pointing out that the Course didn’t make money before and that the purpose of the City’s suit is to merely put the Course back into play. Not indicated in the article is that the Course still loses about the same amount of money each year even thought it has been renovated for $7 million. So, this is supposed to be putting the Course to a “better public use?” Ask the vast majority of Missouri City residents whether they are behind the Eminent Domain Lawsuit and they will emphatically say, “NO.”