Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not that simple. What do you do in instances where someone doesn't want to sell. What's fair market value? Does the DOT give "first dibs" back to the original owners if they decide not to use the property? Why even buy the property at all in that case initially if the owners are just going to be the same owner again? What happens if the owner feels unjust in the DOT now selling the property for more than what they were willing to pay for it originally?
I could probably rattle off a bunch more, but you get the idea. It's not a cut and dry thing. Someone somewhere is going to be pissed off. Nothing with government involved is ever simple.
The only opinion that really counts, is the NC Supreme Court's opinion. And the effect of that opinion is, the NCDOT are going to HAVE to buy the properties in a timely manner going forward. On a schedule that everyone knows about so that they can plan their lives. Doesn't really matter about all of your hypotheticals in this post. They will have to work something out. And that will be a whole lot better for the owners than the current situation. Which is them being held hostage until their deaths for all that the NCDOT cares.
Easy enough. If the DOT has a strong case for needing the property they buy an option on it from the owner, or they offer to buy at then market price and lease it back to the 'owner', or if the owner wants to wait to see which way the wind blows they have the owner sign a document that says they understand the consequences but will take their chances. This way everyone has a choice. The problem is the funding, though, since local governments would have a difficult time asking tax payers living in the vicinity today to put up money for improvements that might or might not take place 20+ yrs hence. The leases and lease backs would have to pay for that and might be tough to administer.
The problem is the funding, though, since local governments would have a difficult time asking tax payers living in the vicinity today to put up money for improvements that might or might not take place 20+ yrs hence.
If taxpayers decided that they didn't want to fund the road then it might be a good idea to know that in advance before starting off down the eminent domain path, perhaps. (All money for the road ultimately comes from taxpayers - whether it is "seed" money for buying the properties on the route, or the main funding for the road itself.)
It might be no bad thing to hold referendums, similar to the bond referendums for the schools and local govt facilities. Wake Tech's new RTP campus hasn't even broken ground yet, but the bond for that was overwhelmingly in favor of building it, a couple years back... and when they finally break ground, they know the voters/taxpayers said "yes" to covering the expenses for it no matter when. So, maybe hold a referendum, or bond referendum, for the costs of exercising eminent domain on all the properties along the planned route in advance of the actual road-building. If the referendum is voted down - well then, the road isn't wanted and doesn't get built. If it isn't, then maybe that money outlaid by the voters/taxpayers in advance could be repaid when the main road funding comes through.
These are the sorts of discussions that need to be had now, though. Not pointless discussions over how hard the NCDOT has it and how they need so very many years to do their jobs. Even suppositions about the reluctance of property owners to sell, are irrelevant in the face of this being a road and therefore eminent domain applies. The NCDOT needed to be forced to the table to work out ways so that the property owners are not faced with financial ruin from being held hostage to them for an unreasonable numbers of years. A lot can happen in even 3 years to a person - never mind 10 or more.
I hear what you're saying, but 10 years is not a long time in the grand scheme of highway planning. It can take 2-3 years alone just to do a comprehensive environmental study of an entire route to decide/approve something. It's not that simple.
Too bad for that dusty old constitution then? I understand the DOT needs time and I'm not saying it has to be done in 5 minutes, but making people wait years with no compensation just is not right. Maybe they have to pay an option fee or something, but there have been people in the 540 route that have been waiting 20 years!
Too bad for that dusty old constitution then? I understand the DOT needs time and I'm not saying it has to be done in 5 minutes, but making people wait years with no compensation just is not right. Maybe they have to pay an option fee or something, but there have been people in the 540 route that have been waiting 20 years!
Oh I agree with you, I'm just trying to hammer home that there's no simple solution here and that regardless of what happens, there's a significant investment of time involved. It just gets on my nerves when people try to write things off as being extremely straight forward/simple when there are a lot of moving parts.
It's easy to say "it's simple", but in practice that's pretty much never a thing when dealing with the bureaucracy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
