The City of Houston v. Student Aid Foundation Enterprises--Appeal from Co Civil Ct at Law No 1 of Harris County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Reversed and Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 4, 2010.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-09-00236-CV
THE CITY OF HOUSTON, Appellant
V.
STUDENT AID FOUNDATION ENTERPRISES, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 926496
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The City of Houston appeals the trial court’s order denying its plea to the
jurisdiction. Because we conclude that the claim of appellee Student Aid Foundation
Enterprises (―SAFE‖) is not ripe, we reverse the trial court’s order and dismiss this cause
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
The City regulates development of property in flood-prone areas. In October
2006, the City amended chapter 19 of the City of Houston’s Code of Ordinances to
impose new, more stringent restrictions on development in areas designated as a
―floodway.‖ See Houston, Tex., Ordinance 2006-894 (Aug. 30, 2006). The amended
ordinance provided that ―[n]o permit shall hereinafter be issued for a development to be
located in any floodway if that development provides for . . . [n]ew construction,
additions to existing structures, or substantial improvement of any structure within the
floodway.‖ The ordinance as amended expressly prohibited any variances except for
certain instances involving bridges and facilities necessary to protect the health, safety,
and welfare of the general public.
The 2006 amendment also adopted new maps
redefining the floodway under chapter 19.
SAFE is a non-profit corporation that provides academic scholarships to students
at Rice University in Houston. SAFE owns vacant property that it purchased as an
investment, and it periodically sells or leases portions of the property and uses the money
for its philanthropic purpose. The 2006 amendment to the ordinance placed SAFE’s
property in the floodway for the first time.1 In 2008, the City again amended chapter 19
and significantly relaxed the restrictions on development in a floodway. See HOUSTON,
TEX., CODE ch. 19 (2008). SAFE filed this suit shortly after the 2008 amendment,
claiming a regulatory taking of its property based on the 2006 amendment. SAFE alleged
that the 2006 amendment constituted a taking of its property because the strict
development restrictions meant it could neither construct improvements on the property
not sell it to anyone who wished to do so.
The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing in part that SAFE’s claim is not
ripe. The trial court denied the City’s plea, and this appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
Ripeness is a threshold issue that implicates the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
See Waco Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Gibson, 22 S.W.3d 849, 851 (Tex. 2000). The lack of
The City does not deny that SAFE’s property is in the floodway, though the City states that it
has not had the opportunity to confirm this fact. For purposes of a plea to the jurisdiction, we take the
pleadings as true in the absence of any evidence to the contrary from the City. See Bland Indep. Sch.
Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000).
1
2
subject matter jurisdiction properly may be raised by a plea to the jurisdiction. See Tex.
Dep’t Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 225–26 (Tex. 2004). We focus on
whether facts have been alleged that affirmatively demonstrate the trial court’s
jurisdiction. See City of Waco v. Lopez, 259 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Tex. 2008); Kessling v.
Friendswood Indep. Sch. Dist., 302 S.W.3d 373, 385 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2009, pet. filed). We review a trial court’s ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction de novo.
See Lopez, 259 S.W.3d at 150; Kessling, 302 S.W.3d at 385.
Both the United States and Texas Constitutions prohibit the government from
taking private property for public use without just compensation. See U.S. CONST.
amend. V; TEX. CONST. art. I, § 17; see also Hallco Tex., Inc. v. McMullen County, 221
S.W.3d 50, 56 (Tex. 2006) (recognizing similarity between Texas and federal
constitutional provisions regarding taking of property and noting it is appropriate to look
to federal law for guidance). Although governments can regulate property under a valid
exercise of police power, a regulatory action can constitute a taking requiring
compensation under some circumstances. See Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606,
617 (2001); Hallco, 221 S.W.3d at 56. SAFE argues that the 2006 amendment made its
property unmarketable and therefore constituted a regulatory taking.2 The City argues
that SAFE’s claim is not ripe because SAFE (1) never submitted a permit application or
variance request to the City and (2) had no plans for the property in 2006 and thus did not
suffer a concrete injury arising from the 2006 amendment.
Ripeness concerns the timing of a lawsuit. See Gibson, 22 S.W.3d at 851. A
lawsuit is ripe if the facts are sufficiently developed so that a concrete injury has occurred
2
SAFE also asserted at oral argument that it is automatically entitled to compensation because
the amendment deprived it of its right to build on its property and thereby took one of the ―sticks in its
bundle of property rights.‖ We disagree. Even if a regulation interferes with a property-owner’s use of
property and thus intrudes upon property rights, a regulation constitutes a taking only when the regulation
deprives the owner of all economically beneficial or productive use of the property. See Palazzolo, 533
U.S. at 617; Hallco, 221 S.W.3d at 56.
3
or is likely to occur, rather than being contingent or remote. See id. at 851–52. A case is
not ripe when determining whether there is a concrete injury depends on contingent or
hypothetical facts or events that have not yet come to pass. Id.
SAFE cannot demonstrate ripeness on this record.
At the time of the 2006
amendment, SAFE had owned the relevant property for years and undertook revenuegenerating action, such as leasing or selling a parcel, only when it needed money. The
record contains neither a pleaded allegation nor any evidence that SAFE intended to do
anything with the property while the 2006 amendment was in effect. If SAFE intended to
do no more than hold the property during that time, the amendment did not injure SAFE
even if it made the property less marketable.
SAFE stated in its petition that the amendment prevented it from selling or
building on the property, but this allegation does not show an intent to take such action.
SAFE admitted at oral argument that it had no such plans in 2006. Absent evidence or
allegations of an intent to sell the property or build on it in 2006, SAFE cannot establish
that the amended ordinance prevented it from undertaking a profitable venture and any
claimed injury is hypothetical. See City of Houston v. HS Tejas, Ltd., No. 01-09-00393CV, __ S.W.3d __, 2009 WL 3401066, at *4–5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 22,
2009, no pet.) (takings claim involving 2006 amendment to Houston City Ordinance was
not ripe because plaintiff ―has not alleged any specific improvement or sale that was
impacted or impeded by the 2006 amendment‖); Gibson, 22 S.W.3d at 852–53 (claims
challenging student promotion policies were not ripe because no students had been
prevented from advancing); Harris County Mun. Util. Dist. No. 156 v. United Somerset
Corp., 274 S.W.3d 133, 138–39 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (breach
of contract and quantum meruit claims based on inadequate reimbursement were not ripe
because utility district had not yet decided how bond reimbursement proceeds would be
4
distributed).3 Thus, SAFE’s claim is not ripe and the trial court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction to address that claim. See Gibson, 22 S.W.3d at 851.
CONCLUSION
Because SAFE’s claim is not ripe, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
over the action. We reverse the trial court’s order and dismiss this cause for lack of
jurisdiction. See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 234.4
/s/
William J. Boyce
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Yates, Seymore, and Boyce.
3
The present case and Tejas are both distinguishable from other cases finding that takings claims
regarding the 2006 amendment were ripe because those plaintiffs alleged a specific plan for improvement
or sale that was thwarted by the 2006 amendment. See City of Houston v. Mack, No. 01-09-00427-CV,
__ S.W.3d __, 2009 WL 5064710, at *5–6 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 22, 2009, no pet. h.)
(plaintiffs alleged they intended to sell property for development and had entered into listing agreement);
City of Houston v. Norcini, No. 01-09-00426-CV, __ S.W.3d __, 2009 WL 3931681, at *4–5 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 19, 2009, pet. denied) (plaintiff intended to sell lots to a builder); City of
Houston v. Noonan, No. 01-08-01030-CV, 2009 WL 1424608, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
May 21, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (plaintiff intended to build a residence); City of Houston v. O’Fiel, No.
01-08-00242-CV, 2009 WL 214350, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 29, 2009, pet. denied)
(mem. op.) (plaintiff’s intended use was residential construction).
4
Because we determine that SAFE cannot establish ripeness in the absence of a concrete injury,
we do not address the City’s argument that SAFE’s claim also is not ripe because SAFE did not submit a
permit application or variance request.
5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.