property are merely a proposal that may never come to fruition, the Kolbs cannot recover for a present taking. The City bases its argument on case law stating, “future plans which might result in a future taking are merely ‘future prospects’ and, as such, cannot constitute a taking.” Hubler v. City of Corpus Christi, 564 S.W.2d 816, 821 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1978, writ refd n.r.e.). Further, “the announcement of a projected public improvement together with preparation of plans and maps showing the property in question within the limits of the project, without any interference with the landowner’s use, does not constitute a present taking.” Id. at 822. Here, however, the City has directly infringed upon the owner’s current use of the property. See Westgate, 843 S.W.2d at 453 (<HOLDING>). We find, therefore, that the Kolbs have
holding that the trial court was allowed to consider for the purpose of determining just compensation in a condemnation action expert testimony regarding whether the owner of the condemned property would have received permits to develop wetlands existing on the property holding that there is no right to monetary compensation for a regulatory taking in an inverse condemnation action holding that in condemnation proceedings the landowner has the burden of establishing the value of the property holding that property owner still has relief in the form of the return of his property though condemnation was complete and a highway was constructed across the property recognizing that publicly targeting a property for condemnation resulting in economic damage to the owner generally does not give rise to an inverse condemnation cause of action unless there is some direct restriction on use of the property