State v. PR Investments & Specialty Retailers, Inc.

I respectfully dissent from the en banc court’s disposition of the case. I do so for the reasons set forth below, as well as those in the original panel opinion.1

*677From at least February 1998 through the commissioners’ hearing in May 1998, and again in March 1999, the State assured the property owners that construction in the condemned property would proceed according to the Sparks plan.2 The calculation of damages involves considering the nature of what the condemnor intends to build and the use to which it intends to put the land. City of Houston v. Precast Structures, Inc., 60 S.W.3d 331,…