115 replies to this topic

[vicupstate]

wellen, on Feb 28 2006, 12:25 PM, said:

Two separate  juries  came to the same conclusion.  Something wasn't right, and they corrected it.  I don't think this will have any lasting effect on future eminant domain cases because there will never be other properties in the city of Greenville with those same attributes.  And besides, every jury is different.

IMHO.

Only one jury. The previous "jury' was a judge who found the case WAS a valid emenient domain taking.  The jury was only to determine the VALUE of the property.  Future income is NOT a valid consideration.  Only replacement value.  Besides how was Cassaday earning money on his property?  He lived there.  The jury awarded more than the already inflated value placed by the three owners.  They let emotion take over, how can that not be excessive.

Riverplace torn down their buildings themselves.  They didn't maintain them because they had no intention of keeping them.

The statement about this never happening again doesn't hold water.  This same situation could happen with expansion of the Palmetto Expo Center for instance.  Future juries drawn from the area will likely remember this case as well.

Every dime these three received over what the property was worth, is money taken from taxpayers.  TIF funds primarily come from when property is IMPROVED.  These three didn't make significant improvements to their properties.

[wellen]

I was under the impression that the jury in the Cassaday case was from a different pool than the jury for Mitchell and Surratt case.  I was also under the impression that above Cassaday's living space was leased office space on Main St and a rentable apartment.

Story

As to your other points, we will just have to disagree.

[Chickenwing]

Apparently the city did not do a very good job of presenting its case, as on the surface, it looks like the properties were taken to enhance the Riverplace development. Didn't Riverplace unsuccessfully try to buy these properties to incorporate into the development? It just looks bad that when they were unsuccessful, that the city decided then to use eminent domain. (I am not saying this is what happened, but it sure looks that way.)

Valuation of these properties would be extremely difficult. They just happened to be in the perfect spot. On Main St and on the Reedy River. Not many other properties can claim this distinction. These facts  make the property more valuable than other things up and down Main or anywhere else along the Redy. The only truly fair way to value them would be to have an auction and let them go to the highest bidder. But that would have been impossible in this case.

I think the jurors wanted to send a message, regardless of whether they should or not, that taking property should be difficult, and not for the benefit of private development.

That being said, I think in the long run, it is better for the city of Greenville to own these properties than to have left them as they were.

[btoy]

What is crazy is how the jury came up with the price.  They just had each member pick what they thought it was worth and then averaged them all together.

Also I beleive they are paying with Hospitallity Tax funds not TIF funds.  

Correct me if I am wrong but TIF funds are Property Taxes that al stay to be used again with in the idetified TIF district and are taxes on businesses and residencies.  Hospitality tax is a additional 2 cent sales taxes on the sales of food and drink with in the CBD also to be used only with in that district.  Isn't that about right?

[wellen]

This is from today Gville News article:

Quote

The city had set aside approximately $1 million combined for the verdicts and had $600,00 available for land acquisition along the river, White said.

For the rest of the money, the city is taking about $2.7 million from hospitality tax revenues and around $1.8 million from a special downtown property district. Revenues in that district must be used for downtown improvements, not services, White said.

[RestedTraveler]

btoy, on Feb 28 2006, 05:15 PM, said:

Correct me if I am wrong but TIF funds are Property Taxes that al stay to be used again with in the idetified TIF district and are taxes on businesses and residencies.  Hospitality tax is a additional 2 cent sales taxes on the sales of food and drink with in the CBD also to be used only with in that district.  Isn't that about right?

Yes.  Pretty much.  Either all of the revenue from taxes can be used for improvements to the identified TIF area or a specified percentage.  That's how I understand it.  The hospitality taxes are on food, drink, and also (in many cases) hotel rooms.

[Greenville]

I have never agreed with the way the city went about doing this.  Regardless of how many people would benefit from those properties being seized by the city, the fact is that these individuals owned the property.  They are under no obligation to sell.  Now ideally, they could be persuaded of the good that would come of them selling their land to the city in order to create a park that everyone could enjoy.  I do not know the specifics, but I would think that the city could have raised the offering price enough to persuade the owners to sell.  If not, then too bad.  The landowner has the right to do as they see fit with THEIR property, provided that their actions are not illegal or harming others.  By all accounts, these properties were not sites of illegal business activity, pollution, etc.  Thus, what right does the city have to blaze in and take that property?

I was glad when the city was able to get rid of those ugly buildings, but I did not agree with it.  The precedent that was established by the city's move was that an individual's property was theirs as long as the government didn't think that there was a better or more appropriate use of it.  How would any of us like it if the government made us leave our residences, regardless of how much we liked our house, the memories there, etc., because they wanted to do something else with it?  Who is the government to decide how your property should be used?  It is YOUR property that you paid for.

It is ridiculous that the landowners were awarded so much in the settlement, when clearly the land was not worth that much.  However, it is a message to the government that they cannot simply bully their way in and take over people's private property.  To make matters worse, this was done over a park, which to most people is a nice area that looks pretty but is far from essential.  It makes the city look insensitive and selfish, and perhaps that is partly true.

Hopefully, in the future, the city can accomplish what it wants to with the cooperation of private land owners (who are willing to sell when they see that a project is sensible and has the potential to benefit many).

[vicupstate]

btoy, on Feb 28 2006, 04:15 PM, said:

What is crazy is how the jury came up with the price.  They just had each member pick what they thought it was worth and then averaged them all together.

Also I beleive they are paying with Hospitallity Tax funds not TIF funds.  

Correct me if I am wrong but TIF funds are Property Taxes that al stay to be used again with in the idetified TIF district and are taxes on businesses and residencies.  Hospitality tax is a additional 2 cent sales taxes on the sales of food and drink with in the CBD also to be used only with in that district.  Isn't that about right?

You are correct on TIF's.  TIF is NOT an additional tax however, it is the increase in taxes (due to renovations, additions, increased value, etc.)received from the date the TIF went into effect.  Those are diverted from the general fund to pay off the bonds use to pay for the capital improvements.  Hospitality taxes are levied city-wide and can be spent city-wide. I believe the city is useing BOTH to pay the off the landowners and their legal fees.  

I think every emenient domain case will now go to jury rather than settling the value without a jury.  This will increase legal expenses and most likely, the awards.  

The ironic thing is that if the city hadn't invested tens of millions of dollars into the West End, these properties would still be in the 'slum' that the West End use to be.  The city increased their property values and then were forced to pay even higher values to further improve the area.  

The city did make mistakes.  They should have acquired the land before agreeing to fund it's part of the Riverplace project.  They definitely should not have agreed to move up the valuation date from 2002 to 2004. Lastly, they shouldn't have gone to a jury trial, and just paid the amount demanded by the owners just prior to that.   Of course, hindsight is 20/20.

[g-man430]

I don't agree with the money amount either. I also think they should have gotten less money, but that's life. The settlement is over, so get over it.

[RestedTraveler]

We almost need a separate thread to debate this eminent domain issue.  I hadn't realized that it was such a divisive topic, but it's definitely a lively debate.  

[g-man430]

I agree with vicupstate; however put yourself in their shoes and how would you like it if the government wanted to tear down and take your house to build a highway through it. I don't know about you, but I would want all of the money I could get personally.

[vicupstate]

g-man430, on Feb 28 2006, 04:41 PM, said:

I agree with vicupstate; however put yourself in their shoes and how would you like it if the government wanted to tear down and take your house to build a highway through it. I don't know about you, but I would want all of the money I could get personally.

I would expect the fair market value and something for the time/trouble.  No different than if my job transferred me elsewhere and I had to sell.

I would take pleasure in knowing my sacrifice created a beautiful park that people will enjoy every day for decades, even after I'm gone.  

I actually had a house that I WANTED the gov't to condemn.  Nobody wanted to buy it  

[RestedTraveler]

vicupstate, on Feb 28 2006, 07:33 PM, said:

I would expect the fair market value and something for the time/trouble.  No different than if my job transferred me elsewhere and I had to sell.

I would take pleasure in knowing my sacrifice created a beautiful park that people will enjoy every day for decades, even after I'm gone.

Ditto that and add:  "I'd simply ask the small favor of a plaque noting the history of the property and my sacrafice as a property owner be added to the plaza/stairway/landing/park."

[Greenville]

I think some people actually enjoy being a hindrance.  I don't know if that is the case here, but I would think that most people could be persuaded to sell any piece of property for the right price (fair market value plus some more because they know the city is desperate/has the money).  If I had been in their shoes, I would certainly have negotiated to get the most I could, but I also would've done so with the idea that I would sell.

However, if the city lowballed them, got upset the owners wouldn't sell, then played the "eminent domain" card...they deserve to pay every cent of the settlement.

[upstategeek]

RestedTraveler, on Feb 28 2006, 05:37 PM, said:

We almost need a separate thread to debate this eminent domain issue.  I hadn't realized that it was such a divisive topic, but it's definitely a lively debate.  

Amen to that. This topic has been the biggest story downtown for for the last four years. It's interesting to see how people look at what happened. It could make for a good book if anyone ever wanted to write it..though who would believe it?

[Chickenwing]

Greenville, on Feb 28 2006, 10:33 PM, said:

However, if the city lowballed them, got upset the owners wouldn't sell, then played the "eminent domain" card...they deserve to pay every cent of the settlement.

That's exactly what the city did. They initially got a low appraisal for the the buildings, and that is what they based taking the properties on. Only later did they raise their offer, after it was headed to court.

Edited by Chickenwing, 01 March 2006 - 08:07 AM.

[Skyliner]

The best solution would have been to give the owners what the property was worth at the time, plus offer them a place in the new development (which I thought the City did).  If that isn't enough, then the owners are clearly standing in the way of progression and need to be removed by force.

[upstategeek]

Skyliner, on Mar 1 2006, 11:23 AM, said:

The best solution would have been to give the owners what the property was worth at the time, plus offer them a place in the new development (which I thought the City did).  If that isn't enough, then the owners are clearly standing in the way of progression and need to be removed by force.

The RiverPlace developers originally offerered them a place in the back of the project. The owners rejected saying they didn't want to leave their property at all, and if even if they did why would they want to move off Main Street and now pay rent to developers?

Also want to clarify one thing out there that has been misreported here and in the Greenville News recently. What the jury decided was NOT new. This won't lead to any change in how political entities go about eminent domain. Go pull eminent domain cases in Greenville County and you will see that practically every person has fought the governments' offer and got more money from a jury. The Main Street Three are not some new standard bearer for eminent domain. They did what everyone else has done for years.

And remember what Strom Thurmond said, and I paraphrase, " how come everytime I buy a piece of land the federal government wants to come along and build a highway through it."

[Chickenwing]

I think my major aversion to the whole thing is that the city did not  need the property. They simply wanted it.

Eminent domain should be last resort, used for necessities, like roads, schools, etc. It should not be used for beautification projects like in this case.

To say that the owners were clearly standing in the way of progression and needed to be removed by force, well, that just opens up a whole other can of worms. Scary.

[Skyliner]

Actually this property was needed by the City to ensure the long-term success of the largest private development in the history of downtown.  I am not saying these owners should have been removed under the circumstances presented, but if property owners are unwilling to move after receiving the money for their land and being offered a brand new place in the development, they are clearly being stubborn and therefore should be forcefully moved for the sake of the whole community.  I feel most people would have gladly accepted the money and new location.