Hold up. All this time he's been talking this big I'm-so-in-the-country game and he's no different than Oxner who claimed the same yet road his Gator to Walmart?! LMFAO.

Santo <-> Dallas is 87 miles.
Santo <-> Ft. W is 56 miles.

1) Santo is basically a distant suburb of Ft. Worth!
2) You could round trip Dallas on way less than one hybrid charge!

#2…

Topic fail.

It's ironic that the person who accuses everyone else of "missing the forest for the trees" is actually the one who is missing the forest. The forest is the state choosing to try to steal the land instead of paying for it like anyone else. The fact that the state leased it for a state park for 50 years is absolutely irrelevant. It pisses me off to no end that it won't be a state park anymore, but the state dropped the ball. The state chose to pass on bidding on the land knowing they had ED in their back pocket. No one else has that ability in a deal like this, and the state shouldn't either.

Although I have never been there I would like to have seen it stay as a state park.


Lets see the owner Vistra notified the state of its intent to sell the land/park, offered the state first option at buying all of the land but the state refuses and only wants to buy 1,850 of it which Vistra says no, selling all as one parcel.
Vistra list the land for $110 million, Todd interest buys it for $103 million which makes me wonder if Vistra would have sold it to the state for even less than that?

Public outcry ensues and now the state all of the sudden wants to buy it The state values the property at $85 million and expect Todd to sell it to them for that and lose $18 million plus whatever money he has invested already in due diligence to buy the land and construction work done already done!
Sounds fair to me right




https://www.texastribune.org/2023/12/05/texas-fairfield-lake-state-park-eminent-domain-developer/



The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has effectively thrown in the towel on a months long battle to buy or seize a 5,000-acre property that includes the now-closed Fairfield Lake State Park in Freestone County.

Dallas-based developer Todd Interests purchased the land in June for about $103 million from Vistra Corp., a private power company that for decades had leased the portion containing the park to the state at no cost. Soon after, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department — which had turned down an opportunity to buy the entire property from Vistra — filed a petition to seize the property, located about 100 miles south of Dallas, through eminent domain.

A Freestone County judge then appointed a panel of local landowners to set a fair market value for the property as part of the eminent domain process. The state could have taken immediate possession of the property if it agreed to pay that amount, but it balked at the panel’s price — $418.3 million, about four times more than what Todd Interests paid for the land a few months ago.

The state, which had argued that the value of the property was $85 million, could have appealed that decision and triggered a civil trial but instead decided to cease efforts to take the property. The Parks and Wildlife Department also said it doesn’t intend to make future attempts to seize any portion of the property, including water rights.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.


“TPWD recognizes the importance of conserving our state's natural resources and providing recreational opportunities for Texans,” TPWD Executive Director David Yoskowitz said in a statement. “However, TPWD must also responsibly manage the state's fiscal resources in order to maximize the benefit of our parks for all Texans.”

Todd Interests plans to turn the former park into a high-end gated subdivision with multimillion-dollar homes, a golf course and restaurants. The company has already begun construction.

The developer did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But in a statement to the Dallas Morning News, CEO Shawn Todd said the state’s decision was a win for Texas property rights.

“This monumental and historic victory belongs to the ranchers, farmers, landowners, and people of Freestone County,” Todd said. “It is a tribute to the undaunting courage of the elected Freestone County officials, who stood with unwavering resolve against former appointed TPWD leadership that enacted policy that was against not only the state legislature, but the inherent rights of all Texas property owners.”

Keep tabs on Texas politics and policy with our morning newsletter
The Brief newsletter
Keep tabs on Texas politics and policy with our morning newsletter

Your email address
Browse all newsletters at texastribune.org/newsletters.


The park opened in 1976 on land owned by Vistra, which in 2018 closed the coal-fired power plant it operated across the lake from the park and notified the state that it planned to sell the property and end the state’s lease. The company encouraged the state to bid for the property, but the state — which only wanted to buy the 1,820 acres that included the park — decided not to when Vistra said it didn’t want to split up the property.

Todd Interests later declined the state’s offers to buy the park property for $103 million.

Texas residents who have been advocating to save the park said they were disappointed in the state’s decision. Administrators of the Save Fairfield Lake State Park Facebook group were pushing the state to appeal the local panel’s decision on the property’s value.

“Even though this is concluded, I want people to continue pushing our public officials to conserve public land,” said Misti Little, administrator of the Facebook group. “We are only going to lose more land as cities expand outward, so we need to keep the momentum moving forward.”

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.


Texas lawmakers this year passed legislation to provide $1 billion for acquiring land and creating new state parks, saying the money could create dozens of new state parks and alleviate long lines and waitlists at existing parks. In the November election, voters approved that fund through a constitutional amendment.

I have been camping there a couple of times. TPWD dropped the ball big time. As much as I hate losing the park I hate eminent domain even more. If the state decides they need your property then you will be against eminent domain.

His county has 28,000 people. That ain't rural.

LOLOLOLOLO Because Palo Pinto is the Wild wild west. Your argument is so tired. Ill bet you havent moved out of your recliner in days. "I live in the cuuuunnnntry so I am better than all dem city peoples" You sound ignorant and hateful. I have spent a lot of time with people that grew up in the country and own land and I have never met someone so ugly and unwelcoming as you. You are the opposite of Texas hospitality. Have the day you deserve.

Not sure why anyone expects anything different if the state wouldn't even pay the asking price or fair market value. The remaining acreage would not be development worthy after the state park land is removed from the deal. It's been said a hundred times now, the state blew the deal. If the state share the sentiment "it's been a state park for 50 years" then they should have stepped up and made a deal early on. On the other hand I wouldn't want to be the owner of the largest private lake and dam in Texas with the state mad at me.


Property acreages consist of the following:
TPWD Fairfield Lake State Park = 1,800+/- Acres
Fairfield Lake = 2,400+/- Acres
Northern Acreage = 825+/- Acres
Total= 5,025+/- Acres

BFW loves government theft.

States already on record for prejudice, Im betting the new owners are licking chops, its Texas, going to be hard to find a jury especially civil that loves or is sympathetic to big government. What has the water oversight been historically to now… thats a hard question for State to over come

He don't care, he'll have his subdivision built soon enough.

The guy paid around 20k per acre. At that price you don't really have to sell super expensive homes to turn a good buck.

Given the huge shortage of housing in TX I would say that this man is providing more benefits to the state then the park was.

Wonder how they will handle the ownership and maintenance of the lake and dam.

2 hours from Houston and 1.5+ from Dallas...probably not a real shortage of housing there at this time.

I doubt it'll be a subdivision like what's in the city...likely be ranchette type places, 50 to 100 acres plots.

Good question on the lake and dam.

I would hate to see what it's like if a HOA/POA manages the lake. lol

Just noticed that half the acreage is the lake.

HOA trust is pretty common. Biggest thing is how to eliminate liability’s. Reason why the former owner had a free lease to state.

So if 1 person bought it for himself and made a big ranch out of it, you are ok with that? Just not a subdivision?

Consensus sounds like the state screwed the pooch. Who is responsible for this in the state government?

Comptroller?

Current plan is for 600 luxury homes and a country club.

That will do wonders for the area. Just look at the Long Cove development by Cedar creek lake for an example. Mostly out of state owners that only show up a few weeks per year and since they can't Homestead the properties they pay full fair on taxes and have no kids to send to the local schools. Even though those homes will be mostly unoccupied they still need maintenance and that adds to the local economy.

The "area" is not as enthused as you might think they'd be. The issue definitely made people choose sides. Watch the state park go away, or support the state taking the land. With the development will come more high end stores and such because the one little Brookshire Bro's grocery store will not be enough. Property taxes will increase, and many other changes will come along with it. All to a rural area (once you get a block or two off the freeway) that doesn't want it.

I too loved that state park. Been there many times over my life both fishing and camping. We own land in Freestone county as well, but not close enough to the park to see any real impact like cited above. I have roots there going back over 100yrs. I didn't want the development either, but won't sacrifice my principles and advocate for the government taking the land. It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in the future, but looks like the path forward is pretty clear at this point. All that's left is the b!chin and moaning about it.

All the moaning about new subdivisions is comical. Subdivision growth has been going on from the beginning of time, and is never going to end. I understand why people don't like it (I don't like it either), but what is the alternative when the population keeps growing? There is not one. One of these days the whole planet will be subdivisions, if it doesn't end by then.