I actually spent a day in Carver last month. The Edaville amusement park is or was a small old school little place out in the sticks with a gravel parking lot, but as of August of last year, they now have the one and only “Thomasland” amusement park in the work, all dedicated to Thomas the Tank Engine and his friends, much to the delight of my 4-year-old son! Would hate to see the town ruined like this . . .
Title here doesn’t match the article at Townhall (”Eminent Injustice in Cranberry Country”) and seems to be for a different article?
This is not what Eminent Domain was for. On the other hand, for the company to make private and very lucrative offers, that’s fine.
We’ll give you a million dollars for your $300,000 piece of land. Where do I sign?
This is a liberal decision playing out in a liberal utopia.
From the linked article about the Kelo decision: "But five justices — John Paul Stevens, Steven Breyer, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Anthony Kennedy — decided otherwise." Kelo is a RAT policy.
From the article itself: "If anything good came of Kelo, it was the furious nationwide backlash, which led a number of states — Massachusetts, unfortunately not among them — to pass new laws protecting property owners from abusive eminent-domain takings." Care to take a guess as to the party in charge where those protections were enacted?
I've seen some pretty serious blight both urban and rural. So eminent domain to improve an area over the objections of recalcitrant owners is not what bothers me, really. Everyone would be better off if it were improved.
What bothers me is the taking of private property over an objection with just compensation for those losing their property. Just compensation should INCLUDE a piece of the action off their former property. It shouldn't be, "We want your property because it has a magnificent view/location on a beach front/river front/lake front, and we're giving you what we think is market value whether you like it or not."
Instead it should be, "We know it's magnificent, the best location around, and we're giving you control of X area in the new development relative to your square footage in the total development.
Then let that person farm it out for business or sell it. They don't keep their shack in the middle of it, but they just might be the same size as a coffee shop in the new area. And someone might want to buy that from them at a real price.
To any person facing threat of Imminent Domain (ID) you should know that the agency has to offer fair market value (FMV) and relocation assistance. FMV is in the eye of the beholder. If it goes to court, both sides presents the judge their offer and counter-offer. In most cases the judge will split the 2 offers and go right down the middle unless compelling arguments can sway them one way or the other.
Even if the City uses it’s own funding and then after the fact decides to use some form of feral money, the feds will require a review of the acquisition process (softer way of saying ID)and they will not sign off if there was any slight of hand during the process.
It is imperative that people educate themselves about the process. Go to the city meetings and ask how they plan on paying for any improvements that the developer is requesting, ask to see any city ordinances they must adopt prior to using ID, ask if they are going to adhere to federal law for acquisition. The State’s Dept. of Transportation or the County are well versed in these processes because of the federal money they receive for their transportation projects.
Presently I think Wisconsin is Cranberry Country. Wisconsin is the leading state producer of Cranberries
Route 44 Development LLC was set up in 2013- by George McLaughlin III and Robert Delhome out of Boston. Would be interesting to see the connections they have.
ED should be used only for legitimate and necessary state projects like needed roads, not damn commercial properties.