Sign in to follow this  
GRDadof3

GVSU Downtown Development

Recommended Posts

I'm really troubled that GVSU seems to think eminent domain is a viable option. It seems more like the nuclear option to me. It sets a terrible precedent when there is so much other buildable space in that area. I don't understand how GVSU has a "need" to take that particular piece of land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I'm really troubled that GVSU seems to think eminent domain is a viable option. It seems more like the nuclear option to me. It sets a terrible precedent when there is so much other buildable space in that area. I don't understand how GVSU has a "need" to take that particular piece of land.

Location, location, location!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really troubled that GVSU seems to think eminent domain is a viable option. It seems more like the nuclear option to me. It sets a terrible precedent when there is so much other buildable space in that area. I don't understand how GVSU has a "need" to take that particular piece of land.

Eminent domain is the only choice GVSU has when they have an unwilling seller. They own all the way around that parcel, makes some sense to me. DeVries can cry all he wants but the court will decide fair market value. Both sides present their appraisals and appraisers and the court will decide.He will come out alright financially, I can just about guarantee that.

Interestingly, there are no curb cuts along Fulton between the Kinko's parking lot and the crossing at Mt Vernon (by the gas station). [email protected]@K, I caught a couple peds:

fulton4.jpg

I've used it several times and that location works quite well. Signal timing is about right to get some good sized gaps during the day anyways. Don't know about rush hour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eminent domain is the only choice GVSU has when they have an unwilling seller. They own all the way around that parcel, makes some sense to me. DeVries can cry all he wants but the court will decide fair market value. Both sides present their appraisals and appraisers and the court will decide.He will come out alright financially, I can just about guarantee that.

GVSU doesn't have a right to this land. They have land to use and their flimsy excuse that they cant tear up their precious parking lots because they have to accommodate future student used car parking is just bunk.

If he doesnt want to sell, then he doesnt want to sell. Build somewhere else or just dont do it.

They are not hemmed in, they are not out of land, and they are not out of options to do this some other way. They are just being obtuse and greedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did GVSU buy the bicycle building? if not i could see that as a future purchase for apartments and offices

Found this (from last year) while looking for something else.

GVSU approves spending for former Bicycle Factory site

By The Muskegon Chronicle

October 29, 2008, 1:39PM

The Grand Valley State University board has approved spending $2.6 million to finish two floors the school will be leasing at the former Bicycle Factory site in Grand Rapids.

It is part of a new, five-floor building erected at 514 Butterworth SW after the 110-year-old factory burned to the ground more than a year ago.

GVSU is leasing the second and third floors for $312,000 a year, with the option to buy the building for $3.5 million in 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GVSU doesn't have a right to this land.

If he doesnt want to sell, then he doesnt want to sell.

The eminent domain law give GVSU the right to aquire the land and requires him to sell to them. The court will decide if their offer is fair market value and require them to pay the fair market value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that a nice, tall, impenetrable cement wall blocking off the riverfront from the rest of the property?

The way I understand it is that's an addition that includes a theater/multi-purpose room that would have expansive views of the river.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what GVSU's Business Ethics professors have to say about this. Seems like something that should be addressed in their classes.

Here's my opinion, for those of you that care: Someone mentioned earlier that eminent domain laws should be carefully (and RARELY) taken advantage of, and only for reasons such as PERTINENT road/freeway expansions (those should be rare), bike trails and lanes (those should plentiful), sidewalk widening, or if a building is causing immediate danger (example: a building blocking the sight of someone pulling out of a alley, a building that's ready to cave in, etc). The law should not be used for road widening, unless they're adding bike lanes. It should not be used to build new freeways (there are some exceptions; M6 is pushin it). And it sure as hell shouldn't be used by a school to take over a building when there are dozens of other locations on which the school could build. I don't care how close it is to campus or how visible it is from the freeway. This is just purely unethical government intervention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eminent domain is the only choice GVSU has when they have an unwilling seller. They own all the way around that parcel, makes some sense to me. DeVries can cry all he wants but the court will decide fair market value. Both sides present their appraisals and appraisers and the court will decide.He will come out alright financially, I can just about guarantee that.

I don't dispute that GVSU can use eminent domain to deal with an unwilling seller, but I question whether they've established a need for that particular parcel. Their arguments about needing all those precious parking lots or being too poor to build a ramp is just posturing. If they can build a new building they can build a damn ramp.

Edit: Why not try and take the Market and Fulton lot through eminent domain? Oh, wait, that would piss off their major donor for this project.

Edited by AlexPKeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GVSU Library Video

Grand Valley State University students, alumni, and faculty share the need and vision for the university's new Mary Idema Pew Library. A virtual tour explores how this learning and information commons will serve as an incubator for 21st century skills on the Allendale Campus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GVSU is going ahead with the eminent domain card:

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/06/gvsu_says_it_will_proceed_with.html

2 points:

- it undermines the right of any owner to let their property decay, fester, and remain an eyesore

- funny how the owner gladly pays taxes based on half of what he feels the property is worth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet here their parking lots sit. One parking ramp with a liner building takes care of 3 problems.

- Supposed lack of parking.

- Infilling their supposedly "urban" campus.

- Likely could save them more money than having to litigate this, tear the building down, do pollution clean-up, and then construction.

I hope the owner takes this to the Supreme Court. It will give them a good opportunity to reverse their lousy Kelo decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet here their parking lots sit. One parking ramp with a liner building takes care of 3 problems.

- Supposed lack of parking.

- Infilling their supposedly "urban" campus.

- Likely could save them more money than having to litigate this, tear the building down, do pollution clean-up, and then construction.

I hope the owner takes this to the Supreme Court. It will give them a good opportunity to reverse their lousy Kelo decision.

I don't think the Kelo decision would apply in this case. The City of New London took the Kelo property via eminent domain and turned it over for development by a private entity. In this case a government body (GVSU) is using it to acquire property for it's own use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like eminent domain one bit; but it is interesting that DeVries is interested in selling if they are apart of the development process of the new building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the Kelo decision would apply in this case. The City of New London took the Kelo property via eminent domain and turned it over for development by a private entity. In this case a government body (GVSU) is using it to acquire property for it's own use.

You're right, but I think this situation is even worse than Kelo. Eminent domain shouldn't be used to arbitrate sales disputes, whether or not one of the parties is a government body. I'm rooting for this thing to get built downtown in some form or fashion, but to me this is still wrong on principle.

If DeVries wants to be involved in the development so bad, couldn't GVSU threaten him more effectively by just saying, "Fine, go away, we'll build somewhere else then?" They're negotiating from a position of weakness if they're devoted entirely to a single piece of property. Imagine if GVSU threatened to move the business school to Allendale... Immediately, you'd have GR city leaders and major donors upset and denouncing DeVries, while GVSU would appear blameless. Instead, DeVries gets to portray himself as a victim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eminent Domain sucks. Repeal Eminent Domain laws...all of them.

If you own property, you should be able to sell or not sell if you want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eminent Domain sucks. Repeal Eminent Domain laws...all of them.

If you own property, you should be able to sell or not sell if you want to.

Then you could forget just about any public infrastructure systems. How do you think most roads, and sometimes fixed rail transit systems, get built? For one example, the Interstate system, if there was one at all, would be in bits and pieces if public agencies couldn't use eminent domain to obtain needed land. And many of the National Parks wouldn't exist or would be much smaller or cut up into chunks without eminent domain. Public projects with huge benefits to the public (and to the environment and the economy, not to mention the general well-being of a community or the entire country) would be at the mercy of a few property owners who for personal reasons, many of them very self-centered and short-sighted, wouldn't sell willingly.

Also, under the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance, no one is going to get "ripped off". There are many protections and guarantees for property owners and once they become familiar with the provisions of the law, they are more than willing to sell/move - and that's the preference of the public agencies, I can assure you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you could forget just about any public infrastructure systems. How do you think most roads, and sometimes fixed rail transit systems, get built? For one example, the Interstate system, if there was one at all, would be in bits and pieces if public agencies couldn't use eminent domain to obtain needed land. And many of the National Parks wouldn't exist or would be much smaller or cut up into chunks without eminent domain. Public projects with huge benefits to the public (and to the environment and the economy, not to mention the general well-being of a community or the entire country) would be at the mercy of a few property owners who for personal reasons, many of them very self-centered and short-sighted, wouldn't sell willingly.

Also, under the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance, no one is going to get "ripped off". There are many protections and guarantees for property owners and once they become familiar with the provisions of the law, they are more than willing to sell/move - and that's the preference of the public agencies, I can assure you!

While I appreciate your opinion, if I was told that I had to sell my property even if I did not want to, then I would consider that getting "ripped off" to put it in your terms.

In this situation, Devries was willing to discuss selling the property to GVSU; it is just that GVSU did not like the terms that were presented and therefore is going to just take the land. Again, the right of a property owner is to own their land. It should not be so easy to just take it from them. Otherwise, what is the point of owning it in the first place?!

I don't like it any more than anyone else that we have landlords on the west side by GVSU who leave their rental properties in near-ruin to save a buck. But it is their property. And just because I don't like it should not matter. Laws to protect the safety and well being of the renters make sense. But how they handle their property ownership is their right.

Yes, I understand that most public infrastructure systems have happened using eminent domain. But again, I cannot accept that as a reason to take someone's land. If you have lived somewhere for years and now they want to pound out a freeway through your front porch, why should that be allowed?!

The common good?! The common good should be to protect an American citizen's right and freedom to own property. It should not be to decide that because it is cheaper to take their land to build their road (or a building) that makes it okay. It flies in the face of property rights, IMHO.

I am all about the idea of progress. Just not at the expense of my rights. And eminent domain continues to scare the heck out of me. We are a smart country; there surely is a better way to do this.

Again, I appreciate your opinion. I simply don't agree with eminent domain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at San Diego as just one example of the effective use of eminent domain. The downtown area has been wonderfully transformed including Horton Plaza and Petco Park plus the $38 million affordable housing project La Entrada that opened last summer.

Checks and balances are in place. Ask any attorney and they'll tell you the huge burden of proof required on the part of the petitioner.

To simply disagree on principal ignores reality and greatly impedes progress needed in a modern society. That eyesore on Front hurts the whole community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I appreciate your opinion, if I was told that I had to sell my property even if I did not want to, then I would consider that getting "ripped off" to put it in your terms.

In this situation, Devries was willing to discuss selling the property to GVSU; it is just that GVSU did not like the terms that were presented and therefore is going to just take the land. Again, the right of a property owner is to own their land. It should not be so easy to just take it from them. Otherwise, what is the point of owning it in the first place?!

I don't like it any more than anyone else that we have landlords on the west side by GVSU who leave their rental properties in near-ruin to save a buck. But it is their property. And just because I don't like it should not matter. Laws to protect the safety and well being of the renters make sense. But how they handle their property ownership is their right.

Yes, I understand that most public infrastructure systems have happened using eminent domain. But again, I cannot accept that as a reason to take someone's land. If you have lived somewhere for years and now they want to pound out a freeway through your front porch, why should that be allowed?!

The common good?! The common good should be to protect an American citizen's right and freedom to own property. It should not be to decide that because it is cheaper to take their land to build their road (or a building) that makes it okay. It flies in the face of property rights, IMHO.

I am all about the idea of progress. Just not at the expense of my rights. And eminent domain continues to scare the heck out of me. We are a smart country; there surely is a better way to do this.

Again, I appreciate your opinion. I simply don't agree with eminent domain.

Explorer55 is correct about all the "protection" provided the landowner. My employer uses it very rarely but trust me, the landowner is protected financially in the process. One point though, if they use private money, the federal regs don't kick in.

Keep in mind, there are 2 parts to eminent domain, necessity and compensation. In 38 years w/ my employer only one land owner has challenged necessity. (A 7-11 challenged the necessity of widening a busy road - they didn't want to lose a few feet of their parking lot - they lost). Eminent domain in every other case came down to the landowner not wanting to accept my employer's value for their land.

I don't believe DeVries is challenging necessity, just the compensation for the property. The court will then hear arguments by both sides as to why their price is correct. The judge will then decide the terms of the compensation. I also would expect they will try arbitration before a trial. We sort of expect in our cases when we go to trial the judge will play Solomon and "split the baby".

I noticed the quote in the paper DeVries is quoted as saying "we had a deal for 3-4 times the GVSU offer". Smells like a Hanger 42 to me, quadruple the price when the gov't is paying :angry:

Edited by Raildudes dad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If GVSU wants to do something really spectacular, it will re-use the existing building and renovate it into classroom and housing space. As a warehouse, it's built like a bunker and wide open for remodeling. I'm sure it could even accomodate car parking on the first floor with fairly minor effort. Of course, GVSU being GVSU (and this being Grand Rapids), a new "green" building will probably be built which fails entirely to account for the significant cost of destroying and removing an existing building and replacing with new construction. :rolleyes:

GVSU reaches deal with owners (MLive)

...For 4 million dollars, or an additional $1.7 million over the last offer. Not bad for Mr. DeVries. I don't think GVSU really wanted to move on eminent domain that badly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope to see something new, actually -- the old A&P is a terrible eyesore and I really don't see how it can be made to look nice without extensive reworking. (And no, the previous linked remodeled A&P from another city doesn't look good at all, imho.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.