Condemned land: Council okays eminent domain for Parkway

I find it personally amusing that the person condemning the ranting and raving was herself ranting and raving at the end of her 3 minutes. Kudos for practicing your 1st amendment rights but be careful you dont behave in the same manner as those that you are accusing.

Wow, what a screw on this guy. You know, I think if the City was planning to take the property in 2006, they should have to pay the value of the property at the time they planned to take it.

"The city is taking an easement from property owners and giving it to CenturyLink for $1," said Kleeman.

I believe that is unconsitutional - the City cannot take via emminent domain and then give to another private entity. IT MUST be used for the general public, like the road.

"City Council voted 3-2 to take his property, with councilors Dave Norris and Dede Smith voting against the resolution." How utterly nauseating. This city is definitely about taking from the haves and giving to the have nots. The City quickly came up with $1.55M to buy land to build a low income apartment building on 4th and Preston but has willingly financially harmed a family that is working hard to take care of themselves. The City paid $450k for the old filling station on the corner of Garrett and Avon just last year in order to build public housing. The City is giving Habitat property on Elliot Avenue to build low income housing in TWO different subdivisions . I see now how it can afford to. How utterly disgusting Huja, Szakos, and Smith would vote in favor of this action. I hope they take the offered amount to court.@Caesonia, this is why it is very important for citizens to support the referendum that will amend the VA Constitution so that localities can not legally be allowed to engage in damaging privately owned property without just compensation. How utterly vile. Remember what goes around, comes around. I guarantee you, if this family had been black, the outcome would have been different. How utterly atrocious.

Governments job is to piss people off one citizen at a time.

"When I bought the property," says Witmer, "the consensus was [Meadow Creek] would never happen.
Translation: I made a business decision based on conventional wisdom and it was wrong.

This isn't a travesty of taking someone home, it's just a business transaction that didn't go as planned. Taking land is rare but it's for a purpose that allows the construction of a road that will benefit many. I understand arguing about the amount the landowner gets but not the fact the taking can occur.

Starting to hate this little town I used to love.

Had they paid the overly high price a developer offered or thought it wat worth a few years back, how many would be complaining that this is Biscuit Run all over again? Just because some rich folks thought they would get richer in the bubble doesn't mean the government (meaning: the taxpayers) has to pay them what a developer would have overpaid years back. Market value may be higher than assessed, but should not be based on speculative deals made when everyone thought land was worth twice what it really was. I am glad my house assessment is finally getting back to reality. I am glad we aren't paying for poor speculation in the past either.

Some folks really just want to bash everything, and they bash both ways no mattter what the topic. Shows they are just angry little people with nothing to do but look out the window and complain.

The Citizens United decision said that money = speech. Limiting campaign contributions by corporations and the wealthy is a restriction on their freedom of speech. Basically it's opened the door to an even more corrupt political system than we already have. Kathy Galvin has taken that terrible idea one step further. She wants to deny the rights of non-Charlottesville residents to speak on Charlottesville issues but she had no problem at all taking all kinds of money from non-Charlottesville residents and corporate interests in her election campaign. To her Citizens United does not go far ENOUGH in stacking the deck in favor of the wealthy and the powerful to the detriment of the people. If you live in Albemarle, we don't want to hear your opinions, but if you are part of an Albemarle business PAC, Galvin's your gal.

to those who say it is just an investment gone bad and they should just eat it, bear in mind that while they made their decision to buy at the top of the market, they are being FORCED to sell at the low. That property could well be worth 1M one day and in fact you could argue that the meadow creek parkway needing it for completion of the interchange validates their investment and has raised its value. The assessment was not made with the knowledge that it was a critical piece of property to a major development project. they should be cashing in their chips for their foresight if this was a private entity but they get screwed because the city has the ability to "take" but none of the decency to exercise it fairly. This is an abuse of eminent domain and I hope it gets national attention. World class, my **s.

@Money trumps speech: That is the biggest load of hooey I have read in quite some time. You should change your screen name to "BS trumps brains".

Anthony, you are right that this is essentially a forum for complaining about whatever the city does. In addition to what you said, I find it amusing that not long ago many commenters here were up in arms about allegations that the city was artificially inflating their assessments beyond fair market value, in order to wring more tax dollars out of people. Now the city is being accused of undervaluing an assessment, because it happens to be less than it was in 2006. Do we have any evidence for this? Has anyone done an independent appraisal of this property?

@OldTimer:"250 works fine in the city"

Where there are grade separated interchanges.

Land value does not decrease....check any insurance policy- this City council should be condemned............... "we not happy until you're not happy"

It's going to stay this way until you folks in the city actually get out and vote these idiots off the council. Cville just recycles the same tired "activists" every other election. What was a once great town has become a complete joke.

I'm not really going to defend the city assessor's office - they engage in rather dubious practices out of convenience.

Eminent Domain is a necessary part of life, yes it's a bummer when it happens to you, but there is no reason to reward rent-seeking behavior by making the government vulnerable to monopoly extortion. Fair Market Value is appropriate, and the assessment law also specifies that property be re-assessed yearly, to track changes in FMV. I do think it's important and entirely legitimate to question the assessment - just like the boondoggle with Biscuit Run - and to check to see that the city's assessment really does represent FMV. Let's get three independent appraisals, preferably from outside companies.

What cracks me up are the "I hate government" crowd - 24/7 - who bitterly complain about government handing out money to favored folks and then complaining about "property rights" when the government refuses to pay an extortion fee to a speculator.

I'm sure these people were well aware that the notion of the Meadowcreek Parkway was out there - that there was a reasonable chance they'd get a guaranteed payoff if the parkway were built. They admit as much. They are mostly upset that they didn't get a government-backed guarantee of being paid the same amount they over-paid for the land in 2006. And please note: they've done NOTHING to improve the value of that land - it has sat idle since 2006. There is no "enhanced value", no "creative innovation" - they are simply rent-seeking. I'm sure the family is disappointed that their specu-vestor scheme didn't pay off - at taxypayer expense - but I, as a tax payer, am delighted to see that the government is looking out for citizen's interests.

So which is it anti-government, property-rights "tea" types: should or should not the government be saving taxpayers money? I thought the whole point of the Tea Partiers was to stop 'too big to fail' government bailouts of financial speculators: these people made a bad business decision, and the market is punishing them by handing them a loss. This family is taking "personal responsibility" for their "business risks". I think the anti-government crowd should be cheering, as I am, that they are getting their just desserts.

"I believe that is unconsitutional - the City cannot take via emminent domain and then give to another private entity. IT MUST be used for the general public, like the road."

Unfortunately it's NOT unconstitutional. Wish it was, but it"s not. The Supremem Court ruled that it's OK for government to do exacty that in its Kelo decision, where Connecticut took private land and turned it over to a developer for a marina. The state's argument was that they'd get more tax revenue from a marina than it would from the homes that were there. For reasons beyond me, the Supreme Court bought the argument. Ironically in that case, the marina was never built and the land sits vacant today, many years later.

Corrboro,

After the deal in Conn a lot of states immediately made changes to their Constitutions and statues. Virginia made an instant change back in 2007 in itś own statutes and has gone through the process of a Consititional amendment, which, I thought had passed. Looks like it is going to be on the ballot this fall, and I was mistaken in it having passed.

I think the idea that City can sieze something and pass along to a private entity which does not necessarily have anything to do with the road would fall under the 2007 statutes. Why is CentryLink entitled to anything for free? They should be comensating the City and the City taxpayers for the land that they have taken.

This is the same city council that lets our city manger violate the terms of his contract by continuing to live in the county because he supposedly can't sell his house for what he paid for it. They look out for their own and their friends. They couldn't care less about anyone else.

The guy purchased property that was already at risk for being taken (condemned through eminent domain) when he bought the property in 2006, didn't he? I certainly knew shortly after I moved here in '95 that was where the much talked about bypass was to go, whenever it was built. So why are we complaining about what the city did?

A coupla follow-on points:

- Kelo was not taken for a Marina - it was taken for a corporate research campus. Sadly, less than a decade later, that campus is defunct. So the New London has a vacant industrial/research park on their hands. The controversy, however, was not about all use of emminent domain - the use at question here: to build public roadways - a use which is undoubtedly public - was never in question. The controversy with Kelo is that the government was in effect forcing sale by one private owner to another - the land did not wind up as a public use space.

- @Cville Eye - you demonstrate your own profound lack of understanding of economics if you don't know what rent seeking is. I'd suggest you read a little about it. This 'calculated risk' by the family was pure land speculation: speculation that the real estate bubble would continue and they'd be able to re-sell (or actually develop it themselves) for a handsome profit OR that city would eventually have to buy them out in order to build the parkway. Well, the city is buying them out, but at the current fair market value. Again: why should taxpayers be forced to subsidize a poor business decision? Just because the city overpaid somewhere else? Do two wrongs make a right? This is truly just capitalism at work.

- On the Avon/Garrett lot: let's examine the facts, shall we? Maybe the city did overpay. That property - 405 Avon St - has traded hands a bunch in the past decade...and left a nice price history. In fact, the last 'free market' transaction prior to the city's purchase was for $850k in 2006. After that, two purchases by public entities, each for less and less money ($600k in '06 and $85k most recently)....reflecting the falling value of real estate after the speculative bubble popped. The property sold in 2003 for $430k and in 1998 for $340k...so it kind of looks like the FMV assessment paid was in line. These are facts which are readily available from the City Assessor's office.

- Finally: on Maurice Jones - there are many aspects of his hire to be criticized, and I was critical at the time he was hired, not least of which that he does not live in the city. That should have been a disqualification for his hire. If he wanted the job badly enough, he could have bitten the bullet - it's my recollection that at least one former, long term superintendent of the city schools was in this position. I will say that he's turned out to be much better than anticipated.

I suppose these people are mad because the city is forcing the sale now, and perhaps they were holding onto some fantasy that they'd be able to 'wait until the market comes back'...but then, what? Are taxpayers supposed to pay for what ever fantasy valuation a property owner comes up with? What are you, some kind of communist/socialist?

If the city weren't building that interchange, I'd bet these foolish investors would lose even more money - who really wants to buy a house, townhouse or condo right on McIntyre? There are, fortunately a few of those with which to make valuation comparisons...and I think you'd be sad to learn those comps indicate these people are doing pretty well with the City's offer.

@OT What bothers me is taking the land and giving it to CenturyLink for 1$. CL owes the taxpayer.

The land is not being given to CL - the land is being used for the road - Kleeman (doing some fine lawyerin') is trying to conflate things and make it seem as if the easment is being granted over the land still owned by the Witmers for just $1. I'm not sure that's true, because I was not at this meeting, but I'm dubious. I believe that the city is giving CL an easement onto the public land the city is purchasing.

@non-resident taxpayer, your words are contradictory to your argument. I will ignore you from now on. BTW, "rent seeking" has nothing to do with this situation.
Other people: I can not detect anyone suggesting that eminent domain is inappropriate in this case, just the compensation. Government does not use local assessments as FMV, as in the case of Biscuit run, it uses appraisals.

"this is correct and that is why the value should be determined and settled in court."

MMmmm, I am not sure about that, because there really needs to be a consistent way of doing it. Courts aren't always the best place to determine that.

Not sure why you think non-resident has contradictory arguments. And yes, rent-seeking is going on, in a very old school classic sense. Not all rent-seeking is buying a lobbiest.

My understanding is that the owners of the property purchased with the idea of developing given possible future events via social/government activity. For example, a road with more accessibility. If nothing else they expected the location to be worth more, even if they didn't develop the land. There is nothing wrong with it perse, but it isn't the result of them actually developing the land and adding value.

Only it didn't play out and they are trying to claim the city cost them that value.

I own property, you want the property. Here is my asking price, let's negotiate...........

but no.............

I own property, you want the property. Here is my asking price, but you don't like my asking, so please so away.

but no.............

you are taking the property, and paying me what you want to pay me.

Try that with a gallon of milk or your next car...............

While the Parkway battle has gone on for a long time the fact is, the route for the Parkway has been there for over a decade, after they bought that land. Were they gambling that with the parkway, they could develop the 49 units? Had they gotten permits and found someone to build them and had site plans and everything? Doesn't sound like they did.

If they got 230 for half an acre, and paid 400 or so for the whole, the city did give the half the value of what they paid for the whole piece. It stinks, but they weren't chiseled on price. Just one more flipper finding reality street.

@CvilleEye - "the city government is bad because they pay too much"..."the city government is bad because they pay too little"....who is being contradictory?

I get it: if the government does it, it must be wrong...at all times and in all situations.

Please feel free to ignore me...I don't plan on stopping responding to your illogical and factually incorrect comments.

Why doesn't Council buy the whole lot and deed the residuals to Habitat? Maybe they think this lot is in the wrong neighborhood for Habitat housing.