For those who may be bored.
http://hamptonroads.com/2011/02/ruling-lets-norfolk-take-more-properties-odu-village
I hope this is under the correct category.
Sometimes these things just hack me the heck off. I'm in favor of using ED for capital improvements such as widening roads, new water lines but not for commercial resale which is what this case seems to be pointing to in it's end results.
Another terrible use in our town is in our new TIFF overlay area downtown. Shops that are viable and that are not considered what I would call blighted are being taken so that the lots can be resold (for a profit) to companies (big box stores) that will bring in more tax revenues. Its' not fair for the three generation small auto repair place to have to move or more likely just close up it's doors.
And tonight I'm going to our city council to fight another misuse (my opinion)of lands gained by ED if I can find the studies to base my fight on. The land, approximately 200 acres, was determined to be ALL needed for a new stormwater basin pond, dam and green area. We just HAD to have all 200 acres at the time.
So a few years pass and then some rezoning was done and this parcel, which is mostly a drainage pond was changed to commercial. Why? The city owned it and was using it for stormwater so why change to commercial. Money? You THINK!
Now suddenly around 100 acres is deemed to be 'surplus'. For land over $50K then if enough people petition then it has to be brought to a vote of the people to declare it surplus. Yesterday is the first I had heard of this and tonight is the vote by the council so there no way that it will get voted on by the people.
So the man that had some cattle on this 200 acres and who got a fair market price for Agricultural land will now get to watch this 100 acres go for 5-8 times more than he got for the entire thing.
I'm not anti city but somethings just don't sit well with me at all when it comes to the use of ED for commercial reasons. That is NOT the intent of the law.
Deral, I couldn't agree more. I think there are some back room discussions going on for properties just as you described. They (the City) look for future ($$) and take the concept of.."They'll soon forget about it". Hindsight is always 20/20 and the public is not that gullible, but when the city has ED at their disposal then it makes it harder for the little guy/former owner.
I once had a city attorney tell me that land owners don't have a check book as big as the city's and that they could not only out spend the land owner but also tie the property up in court longer than the land owner could wait. That statement alone speaks volumes. Council members knew what their vote would be before the meeting happened.
I'm not saying that happens all the time, or every time ED occurs it's wrong but the potential for abuse is certainly there.
A classic example of: "it may be legal, but it is not right!"
When you go, you should say that any net profit from the sale of the surplus should go to the farmer who lost his property to eminent domain and see their reaction.
