moneymaven
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 10:05:04 GMT -5
Posts: 1,864
|
Post by moneymaven on May 12, 2015 23:12:03 GMT -5
I am at a City Council meeting in town discussing eminent domain for a property that they've blighted in an effort to assume and redevelop privately (not for open space, etc.)
There is standing room only and there is a high amount of emotion.
I am terribly sad sitting here and watching how easily this can happen.
|
|
Bonny
Junior Associate
Joined: Nov 17, 2013 10:54:37 GMT -5
Posts: 7,437
Location: No Place Like Home!
|
Post by Bonny on May 13, 2015 1:07:14 GMT -5
No details so can't help provide perspective. Among my many hats I'm a former public agency real estate officer.
|
|
moneymaven
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 10:05:04 GMT -5
Posts: 1,864
|
Post by moneymaven on May 13, 2015 2:26:17 GMT -5
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on May 13, 2015 7:08:59 GMT -5
Horrifying and sad. And a direct result of the Kelo decision by the Supreme Court.
The worst part about the Kelo decision is that the project that started it all remains uncompleted to this day. So the government displaced all those homeowners and businesses to make way for a private development... that never happened.
|
|
mollyanna58
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 5, 2011 13:20:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,671
|
Post by mollyanna58 on May 13, 2015 7:15:48 GMT -5
It would have been helpful if the article had photos of the "blighted" area. In general, I think it's deplorable when government uses eminent domain to forcibly take property from a private owner in order to sell it to another private owner.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,910
|
Post by happyhoix on May 13, 2015 7:35:04 GMT -5
It would have been helpful if the article had photos of the "blighted" area. In general, I think it's deplorable when government uses eminent domain to forcibly take property from a private owner in order to sell it to another private owner. Our town has some houses that were rental properties owned by some property company. They were severely damaged in the tornado 4 years ago, and the property company collected the insurance money, but never did anything to repair the damage or to raze the property, so these houses sit in neighborhoods, dangerous attractive playgrounds for local kids, overgrown with brush and vines. The local government has sent letters to the property owner demanding they repair them or tear them down, but nothing happens. In the case of those houses, I don't have a problem with the local government seizing the lots and bulldozing the damaged houses. Then hopefully the government can sell the lot and someone will come along and build a new house on it. The property owner had a chance to make the repairs and save the houses, but they took the money and walked away.
|
|
moneymaven
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 10:05:04 GMT -5
Posts: 1,864
|
Post by moneymaven on May 13, 2015 8:27:14 GMT -5
The property is not blight. The land in question is prime real estate and the owners of the various business have submitted proposals for various redevelopments for over the last 10 years. Planning/Zoning has denied every proposal presented.
The redevelopment that the City wants pushes out all of these businesses. I didn't realize that the use of eminent domain could be for anything other than public improvements (such as roads and infrastructure development). Taking private land for another private developer is theft, if you ask me. Their proposed development is an urban village with retail, etc. Less than two miles away is one of the largest shopping centers in town with 130+ specialty shops and other accessible accommodations like theaters, spas, etc.
Across the street from this property is a well known strip club (owned by the mayors wife) and a handful of sex shops. Oh, and a huge Target.
Anyone have experience with eminent domain see it being used for these purposes?
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,363
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on May 13, 2015 8:30:59 GMT -5
Horrifying and sad. And a direct result of the Kelo decision by the Supreme Court.
The worst part about the Kelo decision is that the project that started it all remains uncompleted to this day. So the government displaced all those homeowners and businesses to make way for a private development... that never happened. That was a travesty. Luckily that case also spurred many states to change their eminent domain laws.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on May 13, 2015 8:53:23 GMT -5
The property is not blight. The land in question is prime real estate and the owners of the various business have submitted proposals for various redevelopments for over the last 10 years. Planning/Zoning has denied every proposal presented. The redevelopment that the City wants pushes out all of these businesses. I didn't realize that the use of eminent domain could be for anything other than public improvements (such as roads and infrastructure development). Taking private land for another private developer is theft, if you ask me. Their proposed development is an urban village with retail, etc. Less than two miles away is one of the largest shopping centers in town with 130+ specialty shops and other accessible accommodations like theaters, spas, etc. Across the street from this property is a well known strip club (owned by the mayors wife) and a handful of sex shops. Oh, and a huge Target. Anyone have experience with eminent domain see it being used for these purposes? Yes, read the case law on the Kelo case. Very famous (infamous) case in which the Supreme Court ruled it was OK for a city to use Eminent Domain to force out some homeowners and businesses in order to replace them with a new private development. The SC ruled that this type of use of Eminent Domain does not violate the constitution as long as the homeowners/businesses being forced out receive adequate market rate compensation. It was also based on the fact that the state laws at the time allowed for Eminent Domain in a broad use such as for economic development (didn't specify that had to be public, so private was OK), not just to eliminate blight or provide for public works.
What do your local laws allow for?
|
|
Regis
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 12:26:50 GMT -5
Posts: 1,414
|
Post by Regis on May 13, 2015 9:30:42 GMT -5
We were working on an outlet mall project several years ago where the developer had access to a state highway but didn't like the width or location of that access. They tried to buy property from an adjacent landowner who had no interest in selling. The developer turned to the town, who used eminent domain to acquire the property the developer wanted. We were tasked with writing the description for the acquisition of the property. When I asked where the new drive was to be located, I was told by the Town Manager to put it right down the middle of the property. What he was trying to do was punish the property owners by splitting it in half. What ended up happening was that the property owner sold the two remaining pieces to two separate fast food establishments and ended up an instant millionaire.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,868
|
Post by zibazinski on May 13, 2015 9:46:01 GMT -5
This happened in Clearwater. There were a lot of mom and pop motels that Canadiens had been wintering in for decades. City decided they wanted fancy hotels there instead. Property owners wouldn't sell so city upped their taxes so high they couldn't hang on. Developers ran out of money so unfinished hotels remain. I wish the city would have demanded the developer post a bond to the value of the entire project. But the last thing Clearwater needed was ANOTHER hotel that wasn't even on the beach.
|
|
mollyanna58
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 5, 2011 13:20:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,671
|
Post by mollyanna58 on May 13, 2015 9:46:34 GMT -5
It has been used or tried to be used in some towns along the Jersey shore to force out people who own pleasant little houses and the land is then sold to developers to put up high density condos. I think the theory used by local politicians is that the overall tax base will be greater, so more tax dollars are coming in, therefore it's for the greater good.
|
|
chen35
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 19:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,295
|
Post by chen35 on May 13, 2015 10:38:03 GMT -5
The house across the street from my parents was marked for tear down due to expanding a turn lane on the street behind the house. They forced the owners to sell the home and move. It sat unoccupied for a few years. Apparently they changed their minds because it was just sold to a new family. That's better than being empty, but I feel bad for the family that was forced to move. The mom was in Afghanistan on tour, and it was a real hardship for them to find a new place with everything else they had going on.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,868
|
Post by zibazinski on May 13, 2015 10:42:14 GMT -5
That shit pisses me off royally. Someone's head should roll.
|
|
Bonny
Junior Associate
Joined: Nov 17, 2013 10:54:37 GMT -5
Posts: 7,437
Location: No Place Like Home!
|
Post by Bonny on May 13, 2015 12:55:16 GMT -5
Like any tool eminent domain can be abused. It must be used for a public purpose. In the Kelo case the public purpose was to redevelop the area to increase the tax base. Depending on what is the source of funding for the acquisitions certain rules must be followed. One of those rules is the definition of "blight" which is measured by the number of vacant buildings and "substandard" development. Kelo lost because they challenged that redevelopment of an area is a public purpose. You can read about it here: www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html I like this source because it lays out the facts without all the drama. Most governmental agencies prefer voluntary sales or "friendly" condemnations. Going through the full condemnation process is expensive and there's a real risk that a court can be sympathetic. However if a governmental agency needs to get a project done they need all the tools necessary. Remember that under the 5th Amendment a property owner has a right to "Just Compensation" not the use of the property for eternity. In other words the government can "take" your property but they must pay you a fair sum. What would be the alternative? What we see in other countries where a greedy dictator just steals it? We have to have a process so public projects can get built. And I know the best stories are about the 93 year old widow who has lived in her house her whole life has her house "taken" away but the reality is usually different. Under Federal Relocation law a property owner must be paid the highest probable price. So the government can't low-ball a property owner. Generally speaking the government will pay the price supported by a generous appraisal. I know that when my agency was acquiring properties they were paying essentially a 20% premium over FMV. As a county tax payer it made my blood boil. However that approach tended to get cooperation and it was a lot cheaper and less risky than going to trial. But shock of shock there are greedy landowners. I remember one project that I worked on whereby the landowner tried to make a claim that his remaining property would be devalued being next to a BART station (Bay Area Rapid Transit) so he wanted extra compensation. We took the wind out of his sails by saying "fine" we'll buy it all. And then we turned around and cleared out his nasty no-tell motel and junk yard and did a 99 ground lease to a developer who built 153 apartment units within walking distance of BART. The two bedroom are currently renting out for $3000/mth because of that "undesirable" location. The property owner could have done that himself but it takes a long time to go through the planning and approval process. He just wanted his money. We took the opportunity to put one of the first high density projects in the area. And sure enough all the other landowners started doing the same. Our project quadrupled their property values. And of course there are the interesting and bizarre cases where there is just a difference of opinion. One of my favorite stories is right here in my town. City wanted to widen one our main ingress/egress roads. It's on a steep hill and had many curves. The town joke was that the County had simply paved over what had been a cow path. City paid him a decent price but he made a claim for more money because they used the dirt from his property to smooth out curves on the opposite side of the hill. He wanted to be paid extra for the use of his dirt making a claim that if the City had to truck in fill dirt it would have cost the project more money. Court agreed with him. Ironically he was on his way to the escrow company in downtown Redwood City to pick up his million dollar check when he drove around the Caltrain Crossing gates and was killed. Years later I met his widow in my role of president of a local land trust. Because we could be working with her on a project I thought it best that she know that I worked for Caltrain. She didn't seem too fazed by it. I gathered that he was a difficult man but at least he left her a wealthy widow!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 10, 2024 3:03:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2015 12:55:20 GMT -5
It's theft no matter what they call it.
|
|
ponomo
Initiate Member
Joined: Aug 17, 2014 19:27:45 GMT -5
Posts: 58
|
Post by ponomo on May 13, 2015 13:02:22 GMT -5
This story is so sad! Glendale is quite quirky, so not really surprising, but sad nonetheless.
My vet of 30+ years lost his place to eminent domain when they tore everything down along Peoria/I70, it sucked but at least the area was already blighted and in need of something to fix it up, a light rail track wasn't what he had in mind.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 10, 2024 3:03:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2015 13:10:23 GMT -5
My mother and her 11 neighbors were forced to move because of this. It was not a blighted area and they were not forced to name it as a blighted area. She came out of it pretty good but it was a year of fear for her and her neighbors. The city opened a can of worms that they never expected. Mom's house was moved across the city which meant the world to her although she is not in it. The houses that couldn't be moved were burnt down and it would have broken her heart to see that happen.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,868
|
Post by zibazinski on May 13, 2015 13:30:29 GMT -5
|
|
joemilitary
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 8, 2014 14:26:13 GMT -5
Posts: 682
|
Post by joemilitary on May 13, 2015 13:35:56 GMT -5
I thought eminent domain was where the king got to sleep with a person's wife before the wedding day?
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,745
|
Post by souldoubt on May 13, 2015 13:37:41 GMT -5
That's "progress" for you. I'm still amazed yet not surprised at how much they build up around here without doing anything to address the parking/traffic/infrastructure issues. There's a giant monstrosity being built about 2-3 miles from me that's miles from the freeway that's going to make terrible traffic even worse. The city I work in is a highly desirable area with great schools and it's now expected to have worse traffic than Los Angeles by 2020. There have been talks about expanding the freeways in some areas which can only be done by wiping out neighborhoods that are inhabited by people or families who have been there for 50 years in some cases.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on May 13, 2015 14:13:48 GMT -5
Like any tool eminent domain can be abused. It must be used for a public purpose. In the Kelo case the public purpose was to redevelop the area to increase the tax base. This is exactly what I disagree with. The idea that it's acceptable to apply eminent domain to a property simply to increase the tax base is - IMHO - wrong. At the heart of it, that assertion is that even if you're happy with your home and have no desire to move, the government should be able to force you out if someone with more money wants your property for something that will make the government more money.
What happens when a rich person decides that they'd like to buy a modest home on a property with a great view so that the rich person can demolish the home and build a mansion? That new mansion will generate higher property taxes and increase the tax base - especially if the owner of the modest home is an older person who's lived there for decades and been shielded from property tax increases - so that's OK?
I reluctantly understand and agree with the idea of eminent domain if the property is to be used for a public work or public project in certain limited scope. But the idea that it can be applied so that a private entity can take something from another private entity because they would pay more taxes? Unconscionable, IMHO.
|
|
Bonny
Junior Associate
Joined: Nov 17, 2013 10:54:37 GMT -5
Posts: 7,437
Location: No Place Like Home!
|
Post by Bonny on May 13, 2015 14:27:59 GMT -5
Like any tool eminent domain can be abused. It must be used for a public purpose. In the Kelo case the public purpose was to redevelop the area to increase the tax base. This is exactly what I disagree with. The idea that it's acceptable to apply eminent domain to a property simply to increase the tax base is - IMHO - wrong. At the heart of it, that assertion is that even if you're happy with your home and have no desire to move, the government should be able to force you out if someone with more money wants your property for something that will make the government more money.
What happens when a rich person decides that they'd like to buy a modest home on a property with a great view so that the rich person can demolish the home and build a mansion? That new mansion will generate higher property taxes and increase the tax base - especially if the owner of the modest home is an older person who's lived there for decades and been shielded from property tax increases - so that's OK?
I reluctantly understand and agree with the idea of eminent domain if the property is to be used for a public work or public project in certain limited scope. But the idea that it can be applied so that a private entity can take something from another private entity because they would pay more taxes? Unconscionable, IMHO.
I hear what you're saying Milee but if you drill through the Kelo case you'll find that the redevelopment plan was voted on. Council members voted to approve the plan. People voted those folks in. I'm not familiar with that particular case but I can tell you that on the development plans that I've worked on these plans take years and then there's also the planning and approval process for each individual project. I can't tell you how many public meetings we went to.
My favorite ones are where folks object to affordable living projects saying they will cause blight, slums et cetera and then when the project is approved try to get their relatives in there.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,369
|
Post by Tiny on May 13, 2015 14:40:25 GMT -5
My city resorted to eminent domain to get the final parcel of land (and building) so the larger lot - a whole city block (a corner on a busy intersection) could be redeveloped. The City spent 20 years aquiring the buildings/parcels. It was always known the the WHOLE block was needed and that the mismash of sorry stand alone stores, apartments over store fronts, and the single appartment blding would be torn down. The final land owner refused to sell their building despite YEARS of negotiations with the city. The City finally decided to go thru the process of eminent domain to get the parcel.
I think the City did the right thing. The one and only 'shopping center' was being renovated, other truely blighted blocks of buildings were purchased/torn down/new businesses being built, the other adjoining suburbs were creating shopping opportunities on the other 3 corners of the busy intersection. That final bit of land opened up a huge new opportunity to build in my 'land locked' suburb. It's a booming area now - an actual modern shopping area (no houses or apartments) and plenty of parking that's even walk/bike friendly.
Part of me wonders why a business would fight for YEARS in the face of obvious social/cultural change (like the guy with the property in my example - his tiny store front/apartment over it type building is outdated - espeically when it's the ONLY one like it located in the middle of a busy modern shopping area.)
Once eminent domain is inacted you get whatever price the City is giving you... they dont' exactly just 'take it'. And I suspect it's not something that is done lightly - most of the times I've heard eminant domain being used - it's after YEARS of negotiations etc have gone on. I can see the business/homeowner being taken over being pissed - but they've had YEARS maybe even DECADES to come up with an alternative plan -not to mention they might have been offered a fair price for their property. Yeah, it sucks... but really... maybe it's not such a bad thing.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,369
|
Post by Tiny on May 13, 2015 14:52:27 GMT -5
Not eminent domain but something that generated alot of angry homeowners: A big manufacturing plant purchased several houses adjoining to their property with the intent to add parking for their employees - so an existing parking lot can be built on to expand their business. The City approved the purchases, the design of the new parking lot (the landscaping/fence street access and rerouted alley access etc). Unfortunately, the other neighbors claim that no one told them that this was happening!! that the houses would be torn down. So when the tear downs started the neighbors threw a hissy fit and stopped the tear down/new construction.
I sometimes wonder if people don't pay much attention to their surroundings or what? 2 of the houses that will eventually be torn down are uninhabitable and basically tear downs anyway - I remember talking about them with my brother when we were looking to buy a house (to rehab/repair) and they got crossed off the list quickly - not a great place - next door to a big manufacturing plant (with it's attendant noise, traffic, etc) AND the houses weren't worth saving. I don't know what condition the other 2 houses were in. Yeah, it sucks to have houses torn down - but sometimes it's the right thing to do. I would think the new parking lot with it's 'buffer' area, the rerouted traffic and alley will actually make the block NICER for the existing houses/homeowners. They will have more of a divide between 'business' and residential areas.
I know the big manufacturing plant owners worked on this improvement for years - my bro and I were house hunting 6-7 years ago (when the first two teardowns were acquired by the Plant).
This may have been just a lack of constant communication with the existing homeowners....
|
|
shanendoah
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:44:48 GMT -5
Posts: 10,096
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0c3563
|
Post by shanendoah on May 13, 2015 15:27:15 GMT -5
Story of eminent domain revenge:
Back when they were building the raised version if I-80 through the Reno/Sparks area, they decided that it should run a little north of downtown Reno, but pretty much right NEXT to downtown Sparks. And by next to, I mean directly over the buildings that were on the south side of the main Sparks casino area. One of those buildings was John Ascuaga's Nugget. Ascuaga fought the plan and fought and fought. He lost. They build the freeway directly over his casino.
Because of how close they placed I-80 to downtown Sparks, there is no way the freeway can be expanded to the north. Ascuaga mad that the freeway had been built there decided to make it so that they could not expand the freeway on the south side either. He built two major towers as close to the freeway on the south side as possible. The point being to make it too expensive to ever eminent domain the land if the freeway needed to be expanded.
That portion of I-80 has never been expanded, and every day there are major back ups getting past the Nugget towers. (These back ups are nothing like Seattle's traffic, but when I lived there, it was the area of the worst traffic in the whole Reno/Sparks area.)
|
|
Bonny
Junior Associate
Joined: Nov 17, 2013 10:54:37 GMT -5
Posts: 7,437
Location: No Place Like Home!
|
Post by Bonny on May 13, 2015 15:30:19 GMT -5
My city resorted to eminent domain to get the final parcel of land (and building) so the larger lot - a whole city block (a corner on a busy intersection) could be redeveloped. The City spent 20 years aquiring the buildings/parcels. It was always known the the WHOLE block was needed and that the mismash of sorry stand alone stores, apartments over store fronts, and the single appartment blding would be torn down. The final land owner refused to sell their building despite YEARS of negotiations with the city. The City finally decided to go thru the process of eminent domain to get the parcel. I think the City did the right thing. The one and only 'shopping center' was being renovated, other truely blighted blocks of buildings were purchased/torn down/new businesses being built, the other adjoining suburbs were creating shopping opportunities on the other 3 corners of the busy intersection. That final bit of land opened up a huge new opportunity to build in my 'land locked' suburb. It's a booming area now - an actual modern shopping area (no houses or apartments) and plenty of parking that's even walk/bike friendly. Part of me wonders why a business would fight for YEARS in the face of obvious social/cultural change (like the guy with the property in my example - his tiny store front/apartment over it type building is outdated - espeically when it's the ONLY one like it located in the middle of a busy modern shopping area.) Once eminent domain is inacted you get whatever price the City is giving you... they dont' exactly just 'take it'. And I suspect it's not something that is done lightly - most of the times I've heard eminant domain being used - it's after YEARS of negotiations etc have gone on. I can see the business/homeowner being taken over being pissed - but they've had YEARS maybe even DECADES to come up with an alternative plan -not to mention they might have been offered a fair price for their property. Yeah, it sucks... but really... maybe it's not such a bad thing. What you've outlined is typical in my experience. Sometimes the issue is greed but I've run into a few characters that are just ornery and they love the negative attention and the power they get from it. We've got one on the other side of that BART station I wrote about earlier. House built in the 40s back when there were still some farms. Now it's completely surrounded by huge parking lots and a four story car dealership that takes up a block. The owner is probably in his mid 90s and still mad at everyone in government. Property is literally worth millions. I would have sold it in a heartbeat and move to a nice home in a warm climate. I guess being pissed off at the government gives him something to live for!
|
|
Bonny
Junior Associate
Joined: Nov 17, 2013 10:54:37 GMT -5
Posts: 7,437
Location: No Place Like Home!
|
Post by Bonny on May 13, 2015 15:41:34 GMT -5
Story of eminent domain revenge:
Back when they were building the raised version if I-80 through the Reno/Sparks area, they decided that it should run a little north of downtown Reno, but pretty much right NEXT to downtown Sparks. And by next to, I mean directly over the buildings that were on the south side of the main Sparks casino area. One of those buildings was John Ascuaga's Nugget. Ascuaga fought the plan and fought and fought. He lost. They build the freeway directly over his casino.
Because of how close they placed I-80 to downtown Sparks, there is no way the freeway can be expanded to the north. Ascuaga mad that the freeway had been built there decided to make it so that they could not expand the freeway on the south side either. He built two major towers as close to the freeway on the south side as possible. The point being to make it too expensive to ever eminent domain the land if the freeway needed to be expanded.
That portion of I-80 has never been expanded, and every day there are major back ups getting past the Nugget towers. (These back ups are nothing like Seattle's traffic, but when I lived there, it was the area of the worst traffic in the whole Reno/Sparks area.) The sad part of the story is that I've seen egos not only make things much more expensive for tax payers but also get the owner screwed instead of a cooperative approach. In my prior post about the guy who got paid for his dirt and then was killed on his way to pick up his check, he made a strategic error with the development of the rest of his property. He had a dream to turn his "hill" into a conference center. And it really is a spectacular piece of property with a 180 degree ocean view. It's been zoned residential but with the right kind of planning process it could have been rezoned. But a major drawback is the entrance is on a blind curve. Had he worked with the City instead of against it they could have designed the intersection differently in anticipation of a commercial use. But he really pissed them off and cost the project so the engineers pretty much made it very expensive to go that route. It will cost millions to redesign the intersection so that it's safe and could handle a high volume of traffic. Also given the political climate with all of our NIMBYs I doubt rezoning is a reality anymore.
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on May 13, 2015 16:56:12 GMT -5
What a timely post. I will write more later. I was just in a meeting talking about it.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on May 13, 2015 18:35:12 GMT -5
Story of eminent domain revenge:
Back when they were building the raised version if I-80 through the Reno/Sparks area, they decided that it should run a little north of downtown Reno, but pretty much right NEXT to downtown Sparks. And by next to, I mean directly over the buildings that were on the south side of the main Sparks casino area. One of those buildings was John Ascuaga's Nugget. Ascuaga fought the plan and fought and fought. He lost. They build the freeway directly over his casino.
Because of how close they placed I-80 to downtown Sparks, there is no way the freeway can be expanded to the north. Ascuaga mad that the freeway had been built there decided to make it so that they could not expand the freeway on the south side either. He built two major towers as close to the freeway on the south side as possible. The point being to make it too expensive to ever eminent domain the land if the freeway needed to be expanded.
That portion of I-80 has never been expanded, and every day there are major back ups getting past the Nugget towers. (These back ups are nothing like Seattle's traffic, but when I lived there, it was the area of the worst traffic in the whole Reno/Sparks area.) For other folks reference, a major backup in Reno/Sparks means that traffic slows down to 30 mph through that 2 mile stretch of road for 15 - 30 minutes each weekday afternoon. Compared to what I used to drive in when we lived in LA, a traffic jam in the spaghetti bowl isn't even an incovenience.
|
|