Global Courant
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission on Saturday authorized the state to seize Fairfield Lake State Park land from the private developer who purchased the property days ago.
The committee, which oversees the State Parks and Wildlife Department, unanimously agreed a specially called meeting in Austin. The decision allows the department to use the eminent domain in a largely unprecedented case to obtain both the 1,800-acre park and the surrounding 3,200 acres southeast of the Metroplex.
“We deserve to keep this for the people of Texas,” said Dick Scott, the commission’s vice chair.
Dallas-based developer, Todd Interests, has indicated the move could lead to a legal battle. But on Saturday, state officials and members of the public celebrated the vote, underscoring the opportunity not only to reopen the recently closed state park, but also to expand it. The state closed the park to the public on June 5 in preparation for the lease that expired on June 13.
In the days leading up to Saturday’s vote, Todd Interests founder Shawn Todd said using eminent domain would be a blow to private property rights in Texas. His company completed the purchase of the property from energy company Vistra Corp. on June 1.
Eminent domain is a legal authority that allows entities, including the government, to take private property for the benefit of the public. Under eminent domain – which is usually associated with roads and pipelines, although it also applies to parks and similar properties – the private owner must be compensated for their seized property.
A lawyer specializing in eminent domain previously told Star-Telegram that it would become park a legally clear application of eminent domainbecause there is a clear public interest in the country.
But in an interview on Wednesday, Todd promised that if the commission used an eminent domain, it would be “very expensive for the state of Texas.”
“The state is going to pay us an infallible amount of compensation. It’s going to be sad for the state, it’s going to be reckless stewardship, it’s going to be a lack of accountability,” Todd said. “They appropriated a billion dollars of the fund to buy up parks – maybe they’ll only pay that for one park.”
Story continues
Todd told the Star-Telegram that his company has already invested millions in the property. The company plans to transform the park and surrounding area into a high-end gated community, including a clubhouse and private golf course. Todd said the company has already done more than $100 million in pre-sales for the development and plans to have dozens of homes under construction within months.
How we got here
Fairfield Lake State Park has been at the center of a public saga for months.
Located in Freestone County between the Metroplex and the city of Houston, the park has been on leased land for about five decades. Former owner Vistra Corp. leased the land to the state for free because it operated a power plant on another part of the property. But after Vistra closed that power plant in 2018, the company began preparations to sell its entire 5,000 hectares of land. Company list the property for $110.5 million in 2021.
Last year, after the state’s informal talks with Vistra went nowhere, Todd Interests stepped in and signed a contract to purchase the property. The company agreed to pay “more than $100 million” for the property, Todd said this week. He added that he believed the property was mis-marketed and not recognized for its water value or development potential. And because his company specializes in “real estate anomalies,” that mismarketing represented an opportunity for Todd.
“We knew what we were buying,” Todd said.
After Todd Interests made it clear that the company would not renew the state park’s lease on the land after purchase, the state took a number of steps to try to stop the sale or otherwise keep the park open. The chairman of the Parks and Wildlife Commission, Arch “Beaver” Aplin III, met with Vistra and Todd Interests representatives and made offers to purchase the land. Todd has underlined that those offers were for significantly less money than his company offered.
State legislators have also developed legislation to try to stop the sale — first by proposing that eminent domain be used on the property, then shifting to try to block the developer’s ability to sell water from the lake. Those bills died at the end of the session.
And as the state’s lease on the park was quickly coming to an end, Aplin made another last-minute offer. On May 12, he signed an offer to Todd Interests asking the company to vacate the property in exchange for $25 million. (Todd told Star-Telegram this week that the offer was more than his company had invested in the property at the time, though it was still significantly less than they could afford on the property.)
Todd said his company went against that offer on May 23. Todd declined to share details of that counteroffer, and Aplin and the Parks and Wildlife Department had not sent a copy of that letter at the time of publication. Todd has said the state has not responded to his offer; Aplin said the state communicated with the Todds about the offer, but that the offer didn’t give the state enough time to think and vote before the deadlines imposed.
Just over a week later, on the same day that Todd Interests finalized the purchase of the property, Aplin sent another letter of offer. This, addressed to the then owner Vistra, offered $95 million for the 5,000 acres. Aplin told the Star-Telegram it was meant to come into play if Todd Interests didn’t finalize his purchase.
But the development company finalized the purchase, prompting the state to close the park gates a few days before the lease’s end date of June 13. It’s unclear how Saturday’s vote to move to eminent domain will affect the park’s closure.
Heated debate
With the state’s last-minute efforts to put the property in public hands, Todd has stepped more firmly into the public eye. Until recent weeks, the developer largely avoided public comments, though he and an attorney representing his company spoke at legislative hearings.
But with the Parks and Wildlife Commission’s financial offers and the imminent eminent domain vote, Todd stepped into the public spotlight, sitting for interviews with news broadcasts, including the Star-Telegram.
Todd has berated the state in general, and Aplin in particular, for failing to purchase the property until it was under contract with another buyer.
He also denounces the state’s attempts to stop his deal on the property. He recently labeled the state’s actions as “attempts of sabotage” and in an interview referred to the state’s “Gestapo-like tactics”.
Todd has also repeatedly called the state’s handling of the situation “disgusting” and has said state officials, including Aplin, should take responsibility for the fumbling at a prized state park.
He has also warned that using eminent domain may somehow set a precedent. At Saturday’s meeting, however, Aplin underlined that he saw the Fairfield eminent domain vote as a one-time event. He added that, in the event that the committee approved the seizure of Fairfield’s property, he had asked Parks and Wildlife staff to create a policy limiting the department’s use of eminent property to “extraordinary and unusual situations like Fairfield.”
“I view this situation with Farifield as a one-time event,” Aplin said.
But while the Parks and Wildlife Commission’s vote indicates a path forward for those who want to keep the park public, there’s likely still a long way to go. With millions of dollars already spent and hundreds of millions more at stake, Todd has made it clear that he won’t give up the property without a fight.
“The state has laws on the books about how sentencing works and I don’t think Parks and Wildlife fully understands that,” Todd said. “But we totally do.”
Several Parks and Wildlife commissioners responded to Todd’s public comments Saturday that his company planned to continue developing it in the coming weeks and months. They asked Todd Interests to hold off on demolishing any property on the site, at least until the lawsuit is settled and ownership of the property is formally decided.
