City steals man's land to extend bike path

[JedidiahStolzfus]

The city is in a lot of trouble. If I were the man, I would have already hired a lawyer and a back hoe. I'd be digging a 6'x4' ditch across both sides of the path. The city is responsible for making the guy whole, including the value of all the timber that was cut and disposed of, as well as restoring the land back to the way it was before they stole it.

 

[6zfshdb]

Definitely a disturbing story but the narrator makes it a bit hard to follow. It will be interesting so see the outcome.

 

[AHicks]

I was involved in something similar a few years ago. The short story is the county wanted to "realign" a road and it involved taking a corner of the neighborhood. And oh, by the way, we're going to expand the current road from a 2 lane road into a 4 lane with boulevard with extra wide safety zones/right of way. We could not come to an agreement as they didn't want to do anything about sound mitigation. No walls, nothing. So they told us they were going to take the land under imminent domain, and they'd see us in court........ That was the end of the discussion. We were forced to get legal help. In the end, after 5 years of bickering, they paid dearly for that legal help, but the neighborhood settled for far less than what it deserved.

Point being, if a govt. entity wants your land, they're going to take it. Then you fight it out in court. That's pretty much just the way it is, like it or not....

 

[ruffruff]

I was involved in something similar a few years ago. The short story is the county wanted to "realign" a road and it involved taking a corner of the neighborhood. And oh, by the way, we're going to expand the current road from a 2 lane road into a 4 lane with boulevard with extra wide safety zones/right of way. We could not come to an agreement as they didn't want to do anything about sound mitigation. No walls, nothing. So they told us they were going to take the land under imminent domain, and they'd see us in court........ That was the end of the discussion. We were forced to get legal help. In the end, after 5 years of bickering, they paid dearly for that legal help, but the neighborhood settled for far less than what it deserved.

Point being, if a govt. entity wants your land, they're going to take it. Then you fight it out in court. That's pretty much just the way it is, like it or not....

Same deal, I have permission to hunt a wonderful 70 acre piece. The city decided they wanted to straighten the road and put a bike path along it.
Went right through the western 1/4 of his property. They paid him pennies on the dollar for beautiful 100 year old oak trees.

But here's is where it gets nasty. They were putting in a new fleet farm not to far away. Fleet Farm paid 100K per acre for the parking lot.
So my buddy took them to court and said he should get paid the same for his land. Nope he lost. I think he ended up getting 4K per acre.

 

[mschwett]

the notion of total control of "privately" owned land is a somewhat uniquely american thing - and it isn't nearly as absolute as people assume. the land was there long before this guy, and will be there long after. "private" land all around the country is criss-crossed with easements in favor of the public, government, other entities, utilities, etc. eminent domain is long established as legal practice in most states, including ohio.

the city definitely f'd up by building the project without having made an arrangement. it sounds like they were negotiating with him, and for whatever reason it didn't go anywhere, but make no mistake : ohio absolutely recognizes the power of eminent domain for public purpose or necessity, and i believe they even have quick-take. they'll compensate him, as they should, but one private individual can't stand in the way of a road, rail line, airport, etc. imagine the chaos that would cause as the one last hold-out claimed their otherwise worthless property was worth $1,000,000,000 because without it nobody could get to work.

The mayor said he would like the man to make a proposal and that the city would either transact the city property or make an offer based on the value of the Keller land.

 

[PDoz]

There's always 2 sides to an argument.

The city had been in negotiation over exchanging the path for an equivalent area of adjacent land, they had done a survey and come up with a land size / were proposing an alternate route?

My bet is they came up with an alternate route and he's not getting as much land as he had hoped for, and may have even amended the titles, but nobody told him. Or perhaps the relevant communication is sitting on a desk of a sacked council worker.... either way, the city didn't just rock up unannounced and tear down this guys trees - they had been in negotiation and had an in principle solution that he appeared to be happy with. AND they've asked him to come back with a suggestion he's happy with.

People act as though councils have huge pockets - ultimately it's the community who pays for everything a council does. So when an individual is expecting a big payout from council, it's the neighbors paying the bill


Now, about those slander laws....." without asking" ? How much can the city sue the journalist for?

 

[Mr. Coffee]

These situations always seem to get a little bit out of hand.

Two stories I personally know about. One was about a local trail and a request for an easement that would allow the trail to end at a road. Since the property was owned by an extended family this required agreement and negotiation with all of the "owners". One held out and refused to sell at any sane price. Keep in mind the "easement" in question was smaller than a king-sized bed. Eventually the state took them all to court and condemned that corner of the property.

Another one strangely involves my own driveway. A short section of the access road to my home crosses a tiny slice of USFS land -- the USFS owns two parcels and their corners touch right in the centerline of the road. Even though you couldn't park a truck in that spot the Forest Circus "rents" us an easement for $300 per year.

 

[tomjasz]

Maybe the guy is just a NIMBY. What value is the greater good?

 

[BlackHand]

Same deal, I have permission to hunt a wonderful 70 acre piece. The city decided they wanted to straighten the road and put a bike path along it.
Went right through the western 1/4 of his property. They paid him pennies on the dollar for beautiful 100 year old oak trees.

But here's is where it gets nasty. They were putting in a new fleet farm not to far away. Fleet Farm paid 100K per acre for the parking lot.
So my buddy took them to court and said he should get paid the same for his land. Nope he lost. I think he ended up getting 4K per acre.

Friends had a similar situation with the city offering pennies for the lumber. The city just used a generic $/board foot for mature trees. My friends hired a consultant to provide a detailed assessment of each tree's value and used that for a counter offer which the city accepted.

As far as the Fleet Farm situation, if it's anything like where I grew up, the property was probably owned by a relative of someone on the council or zoning commission. I would also bet good money that the paving contractor for the parking lot was the brother in law of someone in the city/county/township government.

 

[6zfshdb]

Imminent domain is very real and exercised in some states more than others. There are limits on how & where it's used though. Decisions are often taken to court and cases can delay the process for years or even decades. It all depends on who's got the deepest pockets. Time can be used as a weapon if you've got the $$.

A personal experience involving my family still sticks in my craw even after 50 years. My father owned a beautiful 1 acre riverfront lot on Toms River in NJ. on which he planned to build a retirement home & dock for his boat. The yacht club next door tried on several occasions to buy the land to expand their parking lot but my father refused to sell. The town mayor was on the yacht club board of directors. He pulled a fast one and used imminent domain to seize my father's land and turn it into a public park, allegedly for "the public good"! Well park or not, the yacht club now uses it as their new parking lot!

My father received nothing from the town and effectively had his land stolen! He sued of course but eventually ran out of money to pay legal fees.

Yes, imminent domain can be used for the public good but not always!

 

[kevinmccune]

I was involved in something similar a few years ago. The short story is the county wanted to "realign" a road and it involved taking a corner of the neighborhood. And oh, by the way, we're going to expand the current road from a 2 lane road into a 4 lane with boulevard with extra wide safety zones/right of way. We could not come to an agreement as they didn't want to do anything about sound mitigation. No walls, nothing. So they told us they were going to take the land under imminent domain, and they'd see us in court........ That was the end of the discussion. We were forced to get legal help. In the end, after 5 years of bickering, they paid dearly for that legal help, but the neighborhood settled for far less than what it deserved.

Point being, if a govt. entity wants your land, they're going to take it. Then you fight it out in court. That's pretty much just the way it is, like it or not....

So true, the PTB and donkeyhole( johnny come lately) neighbors wanted to take 40 ft of our narrow, ravine,"pencil scratch land( wouldn't have left a lot for us and would have made a faster speedway) it didn't happen, it seems Mom really bucked them and the state didn't want more road to maintain, emminent domain really sux, these days I do not care, they could have put a gas line through here if they would have mowed the grass and maintained the drive.

 

[JedidiahStolzfus]

Eminent Domain was gutted when Kelo vs New London was allowed to stand and the "greater good" was redefined to mean "that which brings in more tax money". Eminent domain was never meant to take property from one private party and give it to another private party to raise more tax money.

I doubt this was a simple title transfer as someone stated above because to do so, both parties need to sign, with a witness. If it was, then someone forged the owners signature in the transfer, a crime.

Local governments engage in activities such as this about monthly. Whether it be out of malice or incompetence, it doesn't matter. There's a process to transfer property, and that process wasn't followed here. At this point the city not only needs to pay him fair market value for the land, but for also all the timber that was stolen. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the contractor that removed the timber, not only profited on the job of ripping it out, but also sold it to a mill. And the contractor is probably a friend of a city council member or mayor. The good ol' boy system is still in place across the US in these small towns.

 

[kevinmccune]

Eminent Domain was gutted when Kelo vs New London was allowed to stand and the "greater good" was redefined to mean "that which brings in more tax money". Eminent domain was never meant to take property from one private party and give it to another private party to raise more tax money.

I doubt this was a simple title transfer as someone stated above because to do so, both parties need to sign, with a witness. If it was, then someone forged the owners signature in the transfer, a crime.

Local governments engage in activities such as this about monthly. Whether it be out of malice or incompetence, it doesn't matter. There's a process to transfer property, and that process wasn't followed here. At this point the city not only needs to pay him fair market value for the land, but for also all the timber that was stolen. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the contractor that removed the timber, not only profited on the job of ripping it out, but also sold it to a mill. And the contractor is probably a friend of a city council member or mayor. The good ol' boy system is still in place across the US in these small towns.

Happens all the time, the strange thing is most partys think they are exempt from the "rule"( now you know why "ratting" is frowned upon- reminds me of young kids"well you let Johnny do it!") There is such a thing as 'conflict of interest" which in most cases never fully explored and why some Judges think" Nolle prosque' only applies to their friends and family and ignoring the fact some of them happen to be neighbors, reminds Me of "$cr@# your Buddy day"
It seems the 'greater good' has applied to Walmart in some cases for petes sake( I predict "Sams Club" will be a thing of the past soon, because WM doesnt need them now with the advent of 2$ + "Little Debbie' pastries( for pitys sake people stop buying those things).

 

[JedidiahStolzfus]