Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, May 30, 2025

Starbase, Texas, has notified some residents that they might "lose the right to continue using" their property as they do today, according to a memo obtained by CNBC.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Starbase, Texas, warned residents in a notice that they may lose the right to continue using their property "for its current use."

[image or embed]

-- CNBC (@cnbc.com) May 29, 2025 at 7:53 PM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"But, I didn't vote for this...."

#1 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2025-05-29 10:04 PM | Reply

Womp womp

#2 | Posted by Sycophant at 2025-05-30 01:13 PM | Reply

This is an easy one. Hold my beer:

-This country was founded on private property rights. What is being described in the article amounts to a taking of some of those rights from the current property holders. Courts of law do not truck with such takings.

-Assuming those who received the letter and may be affected are fee holders (i.e., they own their land and the improvements thereupon) and that their current use of that land and improvements constitutes a legal, conforming use thereof, a change in zoning like that described then usually makes the land in question and its use a "Legal, non-conforming use". That means the owner (or a lessee of that land and/or improvements) can continue to use the property under the zoning guidelines in place at the time the property was first put into use. (For example, if the land is zoned for retail use and the owner has a retail pharmacy on the site, that is a legal, conforming use so long as the building conforms to the zoning requirements in place at the time the improvements were constructed. If the zoning is later changed to, say, residential, that pharmacy may continue to operate as such, until such time as the improvements are demolished, after which time the land must be then used in a manner consistent with current zoning regulations.)

-The concept of a legal, non-conforming use after a zoning change is widely understood in this country and courts of law see any restriction based on change of zoning (e.g., telling our pharmacy owner he must now use his property for residential) as a taking of property rights, and such cases are almost always won by the property holder.

-All those on the Right complaining about 'too much regulation' quickly become fans of concepts like zoning and legal non-conforming use of land when someone shows up and gets in their face and tries to take the ownership rights of their land...

#3 | Posted by catdog at 2025-05-30 01:17 PM | Reply

Do you really think Texas won't impose imminent domain to appease Herr Musk?

#4 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2025-05-30 01:33 PM | Reply

Courts of law do not truck with such takings.
#3 | Posted by catdog

You still take the courts seriously? How quaint. Elon and Trump will just get it in front of their bought and paid for Supreme Court and they'll do away those pesky precedents and rights.

#5 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2025-05-30 01:37 PM | Reply

Eminent Domain actions require that the state, upon taking, provides 'just compensation', which usually leads to two appraisers battling it out over their valuations of the taken property. The person losing their property has the right to appeal in court, so these matters can drag out a long time with no transfer of the property until the matter is concluded. Most of those doing the taking cannot wait around that long, so usually settle in a relatively fair manner.

As for the courts ignoring property law, remember this is going on in Texas, where property law is maybe a bigger deal than just about anywhere else, because of oil, grazing rights, and also because it's Texas...

#6 | Posted by catdog at 2025-05-30 04:30 PM | Reply

Re 6

One the main reasons it takes so long to build a great big beautiful wall.

#7 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-05-30 04:33 PM | Reply

Hi,

Eminent Domain expert here. (my second job as an attorney was eminent domain cases exclusively)

Eminent Domain fights cost lots of money. Most home owners don't have lots of money.

Eminent Domain also doesn't often pay for relocation costs or the costs associated with buying a new home.

This has been your daily update in Why these People are Screwed

#8 | Posted by Sycophant at 2025-05-30 04:50 PM | Reply

When are they opening a company store that only accepts X Bucks?

#9 | Posted by jpw at 2025-05-30 06:19 PM | Reply

Same ratio as leprechauns to unicorns.

#10 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2025-05-30 09:02 PM | Reply

Every year tens of thousands of zoning matters are handled in the state of Texas. In every case, those exact same scary words "lose the right to continue using" are included in a legally required notice sent to residents in the affected area.

Yet this one time, "journalists" consider it newsworthy.

codes.findlaw.com

#11 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2025-05-31 11:30 PM | Reply

@#11 ... Yet this one time, "journalists" consider it newsworthy. ...

Why might that be the case?

#12 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-05-31 11:38 PM | Reply

Clickbait, faux outrage, your guess is as good as mine. It appears to be a very routine zoning hearing, to which there will likely be little or no opposition ... .yet they have spun it into a viral headline suggesting people will be evicted from their homes, livelihoods destroyed.

#13 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2025-05-31 11:47 PM | Reply

@#13 ... Clickbait, faux outrage, ...

I'm not there yet.

Residents told new zoning rules coming to SpaceX rocket launch site in South Texas
www.tpr.org

... Earlier this month, the few hundred residents who live around SpaceX outside Brownsville voted to create the new City of Starbase. Now, the new city's leaders have told landowners they plan to introduce land use rules that could result in changes for some residents.

In a letter obtained by The Texas Newsroom, Starbase City Administrator Kent Myers told local landowners they may lose the right to continue using their property for its current use under the city's new zoning plan.

"Our goal is to ensure that the zoning plan reflects the City's vision for balanced growth, protecting critical economic drivers, ensuring public safety, and preserving green spaces," the letter, dated May 21, reads.

The new city, dominated by Elon Musk's rocket facility, is in an otherwise rural area of Cameron County that ends at the beach. Nearly all the land is already owned by SpaceX. ...


imo, if you take the opinion that the residents seemed to have voted for a ~new zoning plan~ without understanding the ramifications of that zoning plan. I'd agree.

This is on them.

But to try to ascribe it to click-bait and faux outreage, as I said, I'm not there yet.


#14 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-06-01 12:00 AM | Reply

www.msn.com

What ramifications? Oh ... .the ramifications INVENTED by the "journalists"., saying "Residents face eviction threats" From the link above:

"The human cost of reaching for the stars has become painfully clear. Confidential memos obtained by CNBC reveal residents receiving stark notices that they could 'lose the right to continue using' their properties"corporate-speak for potential eviction wrapped in legal niceties."

They aren't confidential memos, they are legally required public notices, and the words within these notices are not "corporate speak for potential eviction wrapped in legal niceties" they are verbatim, required lnguge from the state statute.

You call this journalism? Please.

#15 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2025-06-01 12:54 AM | Reply

@#15 ... You call this journalism? Please. ...

They aren't confidential memos, they are legally required public notices, and the words within these notices are not "corporate speak for potential eviction wrapped in legal niceties" they are verbatim, required lnguge from the state statute. ...

So, the media are reporting public documents.

And that is a problem ... why?

But more to what I see as the point of your comments ...

From the article you cite ...

... status earlier this month after Musk's aerospace and defense company won a local election, according to a Bloomberg report. It is now governed by officials who are current or former SpaceX employees. ...

So, the media seems to just be reporting on the effects of what the residents voted for?


Yes, I do call that journalism.

So, that leads me to ask, specifically, what's your concern?


#16 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-06-01 01:19 AM | Reply

I have no problem with the factual reporting in the Texas PR article you linked. I DO have a problem with the intentionally misleading content in the msn articles, particularly the one linked in my post headlined "Musk's Space City in Texas Sparks Uproar as Residents Face Eviction Threats"

I guess you're ok with msn lying by falsely informing recipients of routine zoning notices that what the letter REALLY means is that they are being threatened with eviction? That is fear mongering, and yes, it is a concern.

#17 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2025-06-01 03:05 AM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort