PRINT THIS PAGE | E-MAIL THIS PAGE

Wednesday, August 27, 1997

Judge says law giving independence to suburb unconstitutional

By RENAE MERLE / Associated Press Writer

AUSTIN (AP) -- A 1995 law that carved the suburban Circle C Ranch development out of Austin's jurisdiction has been ruled unconstitutional by a Travis County judge.

District Judge Scott McCown ruled Tuesday that H.B. 3193 singled out a small portion of the state without a legitimate interest for doing so.

"H.B. 3193 is unconstitutional both because it is a prohibited local law and because it is a prohibited special law under ... the Texas Constitution," McCown said in the ruling. "The Governor refused to sign H.B. 3193. The Attorney General refused to defend H.B. 3193. The court refuses to validate H.B. 3193."

The city of Austin sued seeking to overturn the law, which was sought by the suburb's developer Gary Bradley.

Circle C Ranch, which includes 4,661-acres, is known as Southwest Travis County Water District in the legislation.

The city argued that the Legislature removed land from Austin's control without its consent, made annexation impossible, gave the district powers beyond those allowed in the state Constitution and broke contracts between the city and the developers.

"It is truly a victory for Austin," said Austin Mayor Kirk Watson. "Further, it reiterates the need for local control over our individual communities. We must be able to protect our quality of life and manage growth in a reasonable, responsible manner, in accordance with our community's standards." "

McCown ruled that the water district is void.

The ruling does not end the lawsuit, but clarifies what both sides said was an important issue.

How the district will be dissolved will be decided when the final judgment is handed down, McCown said in the ruling. The water district and the city have 60 more days to mediate before McCown will make his final decision.

The district can continue day-to-day operations until the lawsuit is settled.

John Williams, the chair of the water district, said he was disappointed with the ruling. The district may appeal the decision he said, adding that the district's board still needs to meet to make those decisions.

Bradley, who controls a company that owns a portion of the development and is negotiating to buy the rest, has said he went to the Legislature for relief because of what he considered the city's oppressive development restrictions. He has called the Austin City Council "arrogant" for attempting to override the Legislature's wishes.