It's been announced that only two sites remain on the table for the airport expansion. One is the existing site expansion and the other is in Eaton Twp. Many of us heard this last week, and I received a notice in the mail (see side for copy).
Today, the Lansing State Journal reported that as well. What they do inside the city limits of Charlotte, we have no say in. However, for my part, I felt that they City Council of Charlotte had no right to take away our properties because they have no say in the townships. This leaves site F for all of us to still protest.
Don't quit now just because it doesn't affect you. It does, even if indirectly. If they choose the site in Eaton Twp., they are still saying that they can take property from people that cannot vote for or against them.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Lansing State Journal Article 04-16-07
CHARLOTTE - Only two relocation or expansion sites remain for the city's Fitch H. Beach Municipal Airport.
The two plans being mulled over by members of the city's Airport Advisory Committee and representatives from Mead & Hunt, a consulting firm helping the city study the matter, are:
• expand the current airport to the north and south at its current site, or
• relocate to the one remaining site in Eaton Township.
The public will get its first look at the details of the plans and the consultants' findings during a meeting scheduled from 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. April 30 at the Charlotte Performing Arts Center.
The airport advisory committee is comprised of 26 people including city and township officials, local business people and pilots who use the airport.
Mead & Hunt was hired by the city to conduct a feasibility study on expanding the airport runway from 3,500 feet to 5,000 feet.
Kevin Mulcaster of Mead & Hunt said four other sites previously identified - including one in Walton Township, another in Carmel and expanding the existing site from east to west - were nixed in part because of the impact they would have on farmland.
Mulcaster said if the airport were expanded to the east and west, "it would have the least amount of new land that needs to be acquired since the city owns most of it."
Expanding the airport east and west would require the purchase of two residential properties. It may also impact Island Highway.
Mulcaster said if city officials were to choose that option, a detailed traffic study would be needed.
Relocating the airport to the remaining site in Eaton Township would require the purchase of 15 homes and another 27 parcels of land.
Mead & Hunt did not get total support for moving ahead with the two sites that remain.
Mulcaster said half of the committee members were in favor of it, but the other half wanted to remove the remaining township site from consideration.
Still, Mulcaster said Mead & Hunt will include that site for consideration in the completed study.
"On April 30, we're going to carry forward with sites 'A' and 'F'," he said.
"What we're going to do is present the advantages and disadvantages of each site and solicit public feedback at that time."
During the meeting, a brief presentation of the information will precede comments from the public.
Mulcaster said the meeting is limited to an hour and a half and a time limit will likely be placed on individuals who decide to speak.
Written comments will also be collected, he said.
The public will have a second opportunity to comment on the findings May 14 during a special meeting of the Charlotte City Council, at which Mead & Hunt will officially present its findings.
Officials have said a decision regarding the airport's future won't be made until after that hearing.
The two plans being mulled over by members of the city's Airport Advisory Committee and representatives from Mead & Hunt, a consulting firm helping the city study the matter, are:
• expand the current airport to the north and south at its current site, or
• relocate to the one remaining site in Eaton Township.
The public will get its first look at the details of the plans and the consultants' findings during a meeting scheduled from 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. April 30 at the Charlotte Performing Arts Center.
The airport advisory committee is comprised of 26 people including city and township officials, local business people and pilots who use the airport.
Mead & Hunt was hired by the city to conduct a feasibility study on expanding the airport runway from 3,500 feet to 5,000 feet.
Kevin Mulcaster of Mead & Hunt said four other sites previously identified - including one in Walton Township, another in Carmel and expanding the existing site from east to west - were nixed in part because of the impact they would have on farmland.
Mulcaster said if the airport were expanded to the east and west, "it would have the least amount of new land that needs to be acquired since the city owns most of it."
Expanding the airport east and west would require the purchase of two residential properties. It may also impact Island Highway.
Mulcaster said if city officials were to choose that option, a detailed traffic study would be needed.
Relocating the airport to the remaining site in Eaton Township would require the purchase of 15 homes and another 27 parcels of land.
Mead & Hunt did not get total support for moving ahead with the two sites that remain.
Mulcaster said half of the committee members were in favor of it, but the other half wanted to remove the remaining township site from consideration.
Still, Mulcaster said Mead & Hunt will include that site for consideration in the completed study.
"On April 30, we're going to carry forward with sites 'A' and 'F'," he said.
"What we're going to do is present the advantages and disadvantages of each site and solicit public feedback at that time."
During the meeting, a brief presentation of the information will precede comments from the public.
Mulcaster said the meeting is limited to an hour and a half and a time limit will likely be placed on individuals who decide to speak.
Written comments will also be collected, he said.
The public will have a second opportunity to comment on the findings May 14 during a special meeting of the Charlotte City Council, at which Mead & Hunt will officially present its findings.
Officials have said a decision regarding the airport's future won't be made until after that hearing.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
How Property Is Condemned
MICHIGAN CONDEMNATIONMichigan's Website For Condemning Agencies Gary David StraussStrauss & Strauss, PLLC
30500 Northwestern Hwy, Suite 500
Farmington Hills, MI 48334-3180248.626.1133 248.424.9112 (fax)248.709.1689 (mobile)strausslaw@comcast.net
Home
Biography
Condemnation Process
Tips
Links
Recent Developments
Articles
Contact us
The Condemnation Process
I. Pre-Acquisition Activities
The decision as to what property is necessary for the project has legal and financial significance. Although this decision might appear to be relegated to engineering, it is important that the agency only seek to acquire what is reasonably necessary for the project. Various appellate decisions provide a general lay of the land. The last thing a condemning agency wants to do is to provide room for a property owner’s attorney to be able to create a credible argument that the proposed acquisition does not meet legal standards for necessity. The resulting expense and delay can be substantial.
After the decision has been made as to what land is necessary, the condemning agency is required to make a good faith offer to the owner(s) of the property. The good faith offer must be based upon an appraisal of the property by a licensed real estate appraiser. It is important to choose an appraiser that is very knowledgeable about condemnation appraisals. For reasons beyond the scope of this article, a condemnation appraisal is a distant cousin of the traditional real estate appraisal. A poorly supported apprisal, or an appraisal that is unrealistically low, often results in increased expenses throughout the process.
During the time that the appraisal is being completed, there are legal remedies through which the appraiser can obtain necessary financial information and access to the property. A good appraiser should want all of the information he or she needs to develop a strong basis for an opinion of value. The condemning agency should do everything in its power to obtain that information.
When the appraisal is completed, the good faith offer and appraisal are provided to the owner and/or the owner’s attorney. A certain period of time is allotted during which the owner will consider the appraisal and decide if he or she will sell the property for that amount. If the price is not acceptable, the parties will attempt to negotiate. If a price is agreed upon, a “voluntary” sale occurs and the matter is resolved.
II. The Complaint
If it does not appear that a price will be negotiated in short order, it generally is advisable to file suit. Just compensation (the amount of money that a jury ultimately determines compensates the owner for his or her loss) is determined according to the value of the property on the date the complaint is filed. Generally, a long period between the good faith offer and the filing of the complaint results in a needless expenditure of money. The condemning agency generally is liable for the owner’s attorney fees, equal to 1/3 of the difference between the good faith offer and the ultimate award. Therefore, a third of the difference between the initial good faith offer and the
value on the date of the filing of the complaint is the price of waiting.
When the condemning agency takes possession of the property, it must pay the owner the amount of the good faith offer. That is the quid pro quo for taking possession. Thus, if it doesn’t look like a settlement will occur fairly quickly, it usually will not happen because there is little incentive for the owner to accept less than he or she thinks could be obtained at trial.
Once the complaint is filed, the owners have 21 days (28 days if out of state) to decide if they want to challenge the necessity of the project. After this period has passed the condemning agency can request that the court enter an order transferring possession and payment of the estimated just compensation.
If the owner challenges necessity, the process can be time consuming and can threaten to delay the start of the project, because possession will not be ordered during this time.
III. The “Litigation” Stage
If necessity is not challenged or the court confirms necessity, the owner is required to file a statement setting forth damage claims it believes the condemning agency overlooked in the appraisal supporting the good faith offer. The condemning agency than has an opportunity to revise its good faith offer and place a value on any of these claims the agency’s appraiser believes has merit. Any amounts attributed to these claims is added to the good faith offer for purposes of calculating the reimbursable owner’s attorney fees. If additional damages are not included in the statement, the owner is barred from including them at a later day. This area of the law is very new and there is only one appellate opinion that deals with the issue. Thus, there are many disputes over how much information must be given by the owners and
when a claim will be barred. Circuit courts across the state have produced very different rulings.
An order will be issued early in the proceedings setting a date for simultaneous exchange of appraisals. The condemning agency must “update” its appraisal, consistent with values on the date the complaint was filed. The owner also will produce an appraisal consistent with the date of taking.
After the appraisals are exchanged, they will be analyzed by each party. The appraisers usually a deposed within a few months of the exchange. During the deposition, the attorneys attempt to discover the basis for the appraiser’s opinion and weaknesses that can be used during trial. Although the attorneys generally do not reveal everything they might use to attack the opposing appraiser’s credibility, there often is a viable opportunity to settle a case after depositions are taken.
Case evaluation also is scheduled early on in the proceedings and occurs after depositions and other “discovery” ( processes for obtaining information and documents from the opposing party). During case evaluation, the parties will submit summaries demonstrating the strength of their appraiser’s opinion and the weaknesses of the opposing side. A panel of three case evaluators will arrive at an “award,” a value they believe will settle a case. If both parties accept the award, the just compensation phase is over. Generally, a case evaluation award does not include the owner’s attorney fee, the owner’s appraisal fee and some other costs. These items, which the condemning agency must reimburse in full or in part, will be decided in separate proceeding or by agreement.
The period after case evaluation also provides a viable opportunity to settle the matter. As the trial date nears, both parties seriously consider the time and expense of going to trial, as well as the likelihood that the party can improve its position relative to the case evaluation award. In cases where the spread is not that great, the expense of trial may not warrant going to trial.
Prior to and after case evaluation, the parties engage in “motion practice.” A motion is merely a formal request that the court grant relief of some kind. Common motions might seek to exclude certain evidence or have the opposing party’s appraisal tossed out of court for a violation of condemnation law. The results of motions further shape the case for trial and/or settlement.
IV. Trial
If no settlement is reached, the case will go to trial. Generally a jury is selected to determine just compensation. On some occasions, if the parties do not demand a jury trial, the judge will decide the case.
Prior to trial, the parties might file more motions, to exclude certain evidence. Such motions often are necessary to preserve issues for appeal, if the need arises after the verdict.
As in most things, preparation is of key importance.
The attorney and appraiser work on a presentation of the appraisal opinion that is designed to relate to a jury of people who have little or no knowledge of the valuation process. Attractive and engaging exhibits are indispensable. The appraiser should be prepared to deal with weaknesses in his or her position on cross examination. While every point of attack cannot be anticipated, thorough substantiation for all aspects of the appraisal is advisable.
V. Post Trial Matters
As mentioned, the condemning agency must reimburse the owner for attorney fees, expert fees and some costs of litigation. At this stage, it is important to know the relevant case law that has defined what expenses and fees may be recovered.
VI. Appeal
Perhaps because most courts do not have a lot of experience with condemnation cases, many cases involve issues that provide a basis for appeal. The condemning agency must consider the costs and benefits of pursuing an appeal, which vary widely from case to case.
30500 Northwestern Hwy, Suite 500
Farmington Hills, MI 48334-3180248.626.1133 248.424.9112 (fax)248.709.1689 (mobile)strausslaw@comcast.net
Home
Biography
Condemnation Process
Tips
Links
Recent Developments
Articles
Contact us
The Condemnation Process
I. Pre-Acquisition Activities
The decision as to what property is necessary for the project has legal and financial significance. Although this decision might appear to be relegated to engineering, it is important that the agency only seek to acquire what is reasonably necessary for the project. Various appellate decisions provide a general lay of the land. The last thing a condemning agency wants to do is to provide room for a property owner’s attorney to be able to create a credible argument that the proposed acquisition does not meet legal standards for necessity. The resulting expense and delay can be substantial.
After the decision has been made as to what land is necessary, the condemning agency is required to make a good faith offer to the owner(s) of the property. The good faith offer must be based upon an appraisal of the property by a licensed real estate appraiser. It is important to choose an appraiser that is very knowledgeable about condemnation appraisals. For reasons beyond the scope of this article, a condemnation appraisal is a distant cousin of the traditional real estate appraisal. A poorly supported apprisal, or an appraisal that is unrealistically low, often results in increased expenses throughout the process.
During the time that the appraisal is being completed, there are legal remedies through which the appraiser can obtain necessary financial information and access to the property. A good appraiser should want all of the information he or she needs to develop a strong basis for an opinion of value. The condemning agency should do everything in its power to obtain that information.
When the appraisal is completed, the good faith offer and appraisal are provided to the owner and/or the owner’s attorney. A certain period of time is allotted during which the owner will consider the appraisal and decide if he or she will sell the property for that amount. If the price is not acceptable, the parties will attempt to negotiate. If a price is agreed upon, a “voluntary” sale occurs and the matter is resolved.
II. The Complaint
If it does not appear that a price will be negotiated in short order, it generally is advisable to file suit. Just compensation (the amount of money that a jury ultimately determines compensates the owner for his or her loss) is determined according to the value of the property on the date the complaint is filed. Generally, a long period between the good faith offer and the filing of the complaint results in a needless expenditure of money. The condemning agency generally is liable for the owner’s attorney fees, equal to 1/3 of the difference between the good faith offer and the ultimate award. Therefore, a third of the difference between the initial good faith offer and the
value on the date of the filing of the complaint is the price of waiting.
When the condemning agency takes possession of the property, it must pay the owner the amount of the good faith offer. That is the quid pro quo for taking possession. Thus, if it doesn’t look like a settlement will occur fairly quickly, it usually will not happen because there is little incentive for the owner to accept less than he or she thinks could be obtained at trial.
Once the complaint is filed, the owners have 21 days (28 days if out of state) to decide if they want to challenge the necessity of the project. After this period has passed the condemning agency can request that the court enter an order transferring possession and payment of the estimated just compensation.
If the owner challenges necessity, the process can be time consuming and can threaten to delay the start of the project, because possession will not be ordered during this time.
III. The “Litigation” Stage
If necessity is not challenged or the court confirms necessity, the owner is required to file a statement setting forth damage claims it believes the condemning agency overlooked in the appraisal supporting the good faith offer. The condemning agency than has an opportunity to revise its good faith offer and place a value on any of these claims the agency’s appraiser believes has merit. Any amounts attributed to these claims is added to the good faith offer for purposes of calculating the reimbursable owner’s attorney fees. If additional damages are not included in the statement, the owner is barred from including them at a later day. This area of the law is very new and there is only one appellate opinion that deals with the issue. Thus, there are many disputes over how much information must be given by the owners and
when a claim will be barred. Circuit courts across the state have produced very different rulings.
An order will be issued early in the proceedings setting a date for simultaneous exchange of appraisals. The condemning agency must “update” its appraisal, consistent with values on the date the complaint was filed. The owner also will produce an appraisal consistent with the date of taking.
After the appraisals are exchanged, they will be analyzed by each party. The appraisers usually a deposed within a few months of the exchange. During the deposition, the attorneys attempt to discover the basis for the appraiser’s opinion and weaknesses that can be used during trial. Although the attorneys generally do not reveal everything they might use to attack the opposing appraiser’s credibility, there often is a viable opportunity to settle a case after depositions are taken.
Case evaluation also is scheduled early on in the proceedings and occurs after depositions and other “discovery” ( processes for obtaining information and documents from the opposing party). During case evaluation, the parties will submit summaries demonstrating the strength of their appraiser’s opinion and the weaknesses of the opposing side. A panel of three case evaluators will arrive at an “award,” a value they believe will settle a case. If both parties accept the award, the just compensation phase is over. Generally, a case evaluation award does not include the owner’s attorney fee, the owner’s appraisal fee and some other costs. These items, which the condemning agency must reimburse in full or in part, will be decided in separate proceeding or by agreement.
The period after case evaluation also provides a viable opportunity to settle the matter. As the trial date nears, both parties seriously consider the time and expense of going to trial, as well as the likelihood that the party can improve its position relative to the case evaluation award. In cases where the spread is not that great, the expense of trial may not warrant going to trial.
Prior to and after case evaluation, the parties engage in “motion practice.” A motion is merely a formal request that the court grant relief of some kind. Common motions might seek to exclude certain evidence or have the opposing party’s appraisal tossed out of court for a violation of condemnation law. The results of motions further shape the case for trial and/or settlement.
IV. Trial
If no settlement is reached, the case will go to trial. Generally a jury is selected to determine just compensation. On some occasions, if the parties do not demand a jury trial, the judge will decide the case.
Prior to trial, the parties might file more motions, to exclude certain evidence. Such motions often are necessary to preserve issues for appeal, if the need arises after the verdict.
As in most things, preparation is of key importance.
The attorney and appraiser work on a presentation of the appraisal opinion that is designed to relate to a jury of people who have little or no knowledge of the valuation process. Attractive and engaging exhibits are indispensable. The appraiser should be prepared to deal with weaknesses in his or her position on cross examination. While every point of attack cannot be anticipated, thorough substantiation for all aspects of the appraisal is advisable.
V. Post Trial Matters
As mentioned, the condemning agency must reimburse the owner for attorney fees, expert fees and some costs of litigation. At this stage, it is important to know the relevant case law that has defined what expenses and fees may be recovered.
VI. Appeal
Perhaps because most courts do not have a lot of experience with condemnation cases, many cases involve issues that provide a basis for appeal. The condemning agency must consider the costs and benefits of pursuing an appeal, which vary widely from case to case.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Second Peaceful Protest Planned
There is a peaceful protest planned for March 19, 2007 from 5:00 pm. to 7:00 p.m. in Charlotte regarding the airport issue.
Citizens United has a Website
Citizens United has begun a website on the airport issue. You can follow the link here, or on the side column or by typing it into your browser.
http://www.townshipsunited.com/
http://www.townshipsunited.com/
Saturday, March 17, 2007
My Response to Dr. Falik's Editorial
Response to editorial written by Don Falik, DDS
I’m very disappointed in the remarks by Dr. Falik. He uses terms such as “lynch mob mentality” and how the city council’s job is made difficult by “undemocratic and untruthful” forum which it was presented.
Here are some “facts” that he conveniently left out of his remarks. The Charlotte City Council has comments in their minutes from February of 2005 regarding the expansion of the airport. However, this was not publicized other than in the minutes. The Charlotte City Council did not inform the affected areas nor the people of Charlotte until February of 2007. Most of us that are affected, found out via word of mouth and did not receive any notice in the mail of the open house presentation.
Some, if not most of the areas affected do not have the opportunity to vote for nor against the Charlotte City Council because we do not live in Charlotte, however the City of Charlotte is deciding our future.
I have yet to see a “lynch mob mentality”. In fact, everything I’ve seen everyone has acted in a respectful manner. The protest that went on outside the meeting in February was done peacefully and did not disrupt businesses, people driving by nor the meeting.
If Dr. Falik’s definition of “lynch mob mentality” is that many people attended the meeting and spoke against the proposed airport expansion, relocation and eminent domain use, then we have redefined what constitutes a lynch mob. Disagreement with a position is not only our right, but our duty when elected officials are doing things against the interests of those affected. Nobody has been threatened.
I agree that this has been an undemocratic process, but not from Dr. Falik’s position. I’m in Walton Twp. My neighbors and I are not able to vote for any offices on the Charlotte city council. Yet, they are deciding whether to claim mine and my neighbors property as their own for their own purposes.
Calling those of us in disagreement a lynch mob seems to be using events from a historical period that are shameful to this country and those comments have no place in this issue before all of us now. I prefer another historical reference when it comes to this issue. “Confiscation without Representation”.
Thank you,
Brett Young
Dr. Falik's Editorial March 17, 2007
I urge you to read this editorial and write a response. You can fax your response to the County Journal at 517-543-1993
Saturday, March 3, 2007
***NOTICE OF MEETING***
************************************
There will be a meeting at the Walton Twp Hall on
Sunday, March 4, 2007
The time is 3:00 pm
**************************
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Charlotte passes NON BINDING resolution on Airport
Non Binding resolution passed by Charlotte Council on Airport
http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/NEWS01/702270340
On February 26, 2007, the Charlotte City Council passed a non binding resolution stating they won't use eminent domain if they relocate the Airport.
Mayor Deb Shaughnessy told everyone at the meeting "I hope this resolution gives you assurance that we respect you."
The resolution passed by a 4-3 vote.
The Chronology
In 2005, the Charlotte City Council decided to do a feasibility study to determine where best to expand the airport. This was done quietly.
In February 2007, I received a phone call saying that there was a meeting in Charlotte that our area was one that was being proposed for a new airport expansion. The call came at 2:00 in the afternoon. The meeting was scheduled for 5:00 that evening.
The meeting turned out to be an open house, which really appeared to be a free for all. They had four or five people from Mean/Hunt answering questions, but nobody addressed the crowd that showed up.
They originally had 11 sites, but narrowed it down to 8. In looking at it, and listening to answers to various questions, I came to the conclusion that there were really only two sites that were reasonable for them to choose.
They gave out packets, but didn't include the matrix with it. When I asked about the Matrix, they said it could be taken from the City of Charlotte's website or from their website. It was in neither place.
Following this meeting, several news accounts in the local paper, and on television news, seemed to have caused Mayor Shaughnessy to make public statements.
On February 25, 2007, I received a call telling me of a planned peaceful protest for February 26, 2007. During that call, I was told that the Mayor had come out and said she didn't want the protest to take place. The meeting, according to news accounts was supposed to be about putting a firestation on the ballot for November. Nothing was said about the airport.
On February 26, 2007, the protest started a little before 6:00 and lasted until after 7:00. Apparently, at the meeting, council member Dee Smith introduced a non binding resolution saying that they would not use eminent domain to take property from landowners for the airport.
My Opinion
This feasibility study was done quietly. The city of Charlotte paid 2.5% of the cost of the study. How much did the study cost? I realize that Charlotte gets just under $2.1 million in tax money annually, but I wonder what the people of Charlotte think about spending that money on a study.
This study was kept quiet for two years. It only became public knowledge in February 2007 with a decision due in April 2007. They've had two years to consider, and we can only guess at how long before they decided, to do the study. The people that own property have two MONTHS to voice their opinions on the study before the study comes out and is voted on.
Now they pass a NON BINDING resolution. That's like saying "We promise, but don't hold us to it". By passing this resolution, I believe that they are trying to quiet the landowners down and keep this story from being a story until April so that they can then vote on which site to choose.
It's interesting to note that the Council member that introduced the resolution said she didn't introduce it due to any "pressure". If not, why did she bring that up?
With all of the lies and secrecy the Charlotte City Council has done over the past two years, and make no mistake about it, keeping things quiet for two years is the same as lying, I do not trust them when they pass a resolution saying that they won't use eminent domain to take property.
I believe that the property owners should promise the Charlotte City Council to not demonstrate over the next two months over this issue, but that the Charlotte City Council should not hold us to our promise.
Brett
Monday, February 26, 2007
Protest at Charlotte City Hall was noticed
The protest at the Charlotte City Hall was noticed. Cars honked their support, and some for fun, and when it got close to 7:00, some of the council members stood on the second floor and looked out the window at those walking and carrying signs.
There were approximately 100 people walking and carrying signs. Some walking back and forth along Lawrence and others at the back where the council members walked past them to go in the building.
Still others kept walking around the block with their signs. There is a picture in the right column of today's protest.
There was a television news crew out there doing interviews between 6:00 and 6:30. Best of all, the entire thing was peaceful.
There were approximately 100 people walking and carrying signs. Some walking back and forth along Lawrence and others at the back where the council members walked past them to go in the building.
Still others kept walking around the block with their signs. There is a picture in the right column of today's protest.
There was a television news crew out there doing interviews between 6:00 and 6:30. Best of all, the entire thing was peaceful.
Charlotte Trying to Muddy Up the Airport Issue
I've heard today that the news tonight is running a story that the City of Charlotte is considering building a Fire Station instead of the Airport plan.
DON'T GET FOOLED BY THIS.
The money for a Fire station will come from the taxpayers in Charlotte. They will have to vote on it and when they vote, it will probably be in the form of a bond issue asking them to pay an extra $20-$50 per $100,000 value on their property in their property taxes. This is SEPARATE from the Airport!
We were handed papers showing the costs of the feasability study. 2.5% is being paid for the STUDY by the City of Charlotte. 17.5% is being paid by MDOT and 80% is being paid for by the FAA.
Please note!!!! This is JUST for the study. How much is the study costing? Looking at percentages, you're tempted to say, 'well Charlotte is getting a good deal. They aren't paying much for the study.'
Well, think about this. Where does the City of Charlotte get their money? City taxpayers.
Where does MDOT get their money? State taxpayers.
Where does the FAA get their money? Taxpayers of the United States.
Is the study going to cost $1.00? $100,000? $1 million?
If it's $100,000, the taxpayers of the City of CHarlotte just forked out $2,500 to look at the idea of an airport. They didn't vote on it. The council decided to spend their money in this way.
MDOT (Michigan Department of Transportation) is paying $17,500 for their portion of JUST the study. I thought the state was in the midst of a fiscal crisis. Didn't Granholm tell us this AFTER the election? So now we know where some of our State tax dollars are going. Into "studies".
FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) is paying $80,000 for JUST the study. Thank God the economy is doing so well in this country. I'd hate to think they were wasting this money in bad times...but is it right that they waste this money even in good times?
Just think of the money that these three entities could have saved of the TAXPAYERS money if they had just said in 2005 to the people of the area that they were considering checking into expanding the airport. Had people known and voiced their opinion as they are now, it could have saved a tremendous amount of money.
This is what happens when governments try to do things behind the people's back. But then, there doesn't seem to be anyone in Charlotte that is willing to stand up and hold the City Council of Charlotte's feet to the fire for their waste of the people's money.
DON'T GET FOOLED BY THIS.
The money for a Fire station will come from the taxpayers in Charlotte. They will have to vote on it and when they vote, it will probably be in the form of a bond issue asking them to pay an extra $20-$50 per $100,000 value on their property in their property taxes. This is SEPARATE from the Airport!
We were handed papers showing the costs of the feasability study. 2.5% is being paid for the STUDY by the City of Charlotte. 17.5% is being paid by MDOT and 80% is being paid for by the FAA.
Please note!!!! This is JUST for the study. How much is the study costing? Looking at percentages, you're tempted to say, 'well Charlotte is getting a good deal. They aren't paying much for the study.'
Well, think about this. Where does the City of Charlotte get their money? City taxpayers.
Where does MDOT get their money? State taxpayers.
Where does the FAA get their money? Taxpayers of the United States.
Is the study going to cost $1.00? $100,000? $1 million?
If it's $100,000, the taxpayers of the City of CHarlotte just forked out $2,500 to look at the idea of an airport. They didn't vote on it. The council decided to spend their money in this way.
MDOT (Michigan Department of Transportation) is paying $17,500 for their portion of JUST the study. I thought the state was in the midst of a fiscal crisis. Didn't Granholm tell us this AFTER the election? So now we know where some of our State tax dollars are going. Into "studies".
FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) is paying $80,000 for JUST the study. Thank God the economy is doing so well in this country. I'd hate to think they were wasting this money in bad times...but is it right that they waste this money even in good times?
Just think of the money that these three entities could have saved of the TAXPAYERS money if they had just said in 2005 to the people of the area that they were considering checking into expanding the airport. Had people known and voiced their opinion as they are now, it could have saved a tremendous amount of money.
This is what happens when governments try to do things behind the people's back. But then, there doesn't seem to be anyone in Charlotte that is willing to stand up and hold the City Council of Charlotte's feet to the fire for their waste of the people's money.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Protest the Airport Plans at Charlotte City Hall
Protest planned at Charlotte City Hall!
February 26, 2007 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm!
Let your voice be heard by attending the protest on Monday, February 26, 2007 from 6:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. at the Charlotte City Hall!
Signs are being made and you're welcome to make your own signs. This is a PEACEFUL PROTEST.
The Charlotte City Hall is in the same building as the Fire Department on Lawrence near Sharon's cafe.
Mayor Deb Shaughnessy has heard about the planned protest and doesn't want the protest to take place.
Those of us in the affected area in Walton Township do not have the option of voting for or against the Charlotte City Council, but we can make our position known by being present and being seen protesting this proposed airport expansion. I believe that those affected in Section I have the same situation. So the best way to make your position known is to show up and make yourself seen peacefully demonstrating your opposition to this proposal.
I hope that you'll all attend the peaceful demonstration on Monday, February 26, 2007 between 6:00 pm and 7:00 pm at the Charlotte City Hall and show them that we are not in favor of this.
Please pass this information on to others in the area as soon as you can so that we can have as many as possible there to show our opposition to this proposal.
Brett
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Eminent Domain Amendment voted on Nov. 2006
PROPOSAL 06-4
PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
A proposal to amend the State Constitution to prohibit government from taking private
property by eminent domain for certain private purposes. (Proposal provided under Senate Joint Resolution E – adopted by the State Legislature and filed with the Secretary of State on December 15, 2005.)
The proposal would amend Section 2 of Article X of the State Constitution to read as follows:
ARTICLE X
Sec. 2. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation therefore being first made or secured in a manner prescribed by law. If private property consisting of an individual’s principal residence is taken for public use, the amount of compensation made and determined for that taking shall be not less than 125% of that property’s fair market value, in addition to any other reimbursement allowed by law. Compensation shall be determined in proceedings in a court of record.
“Public use” does not include the taking of private property for transfer to a private entity for the purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues. Private property otherwise may be taken for reasons of public use as that term is understood on the effective date of the amendment to this constitution that added this paragraph.
In a condemnation action, the burden of proof is on the condemning authority to demonstrate, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the taking of a private property is for a public use, unless the condemnation action involves a taking for the eradication of blight, in which case the burden of proof is on the condemning authority to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the taking of that property is for a public use. (146)
Any existing right, grant, or benefit afforded to property owners as of November 1, 2005, whether provided by this section, by statute, or otherwise, shall be preserved and shall not be abrogated or impaired by the constitutional amendment that added this paragraph.
Resolved further, That the foregoing amendment shall be submitted to the people of the state at the next general election in the manner provided by law.
Article X, Section 2, of the State Constitution now reads as follows:
Sec. 2. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation therefor being first made or secured in a manner prescribed by law. Compensation shall be determined in proceedings in a court of record.
The following is the official ballot wording:
PROPOSAL 06-4
A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT GOVERNMENT FROM
TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR CERTAIN PRIVATE
PURPOSES
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
• Prohibit government from taking private property for transfer to another private individual or business for purposes of economic development or increasing tax revenue.
• Provide that if an individual’s principal residence is taken by government for public use, the
individual must be paid at least 125% of property’s fair market value.
• Require government that takes a private property to demonstrate that the taking is for a public use; if taken to eliminate blight, require a higher standard of proof to demonstrate that the taking of that property is for a public use.
• Preserve existing rights of property owners.
Should this proposal be adopted?
Yes
No
From the Lansing State Journal
Monday update: Charlotte airport plan on hold until study done
Council vote on expansion might happen in spring
Lansing State Journal
CORRECTION: Benton Township no longer is being considered a site for the possible relocation of Charlotte’s Fitch H. Beach Municipal Airport. A story on Page 1B of Monday’s State Journal was incorrect.
CHARLOTTE - The final decision regarding Fitch H. Beach Airport's future now rests with the City Council.
The council is waiting on the results of Mead & Hunt's feasibility study, which are expected in April. The firm has been hired by the city to conduct a study on expanding the airport's 3,500-foot runway to 5,000 feet.
City officials have expressed interest in expanding the existing airport or relocating it to accommodate corporate jets from area companies that have expressed an interest in using the facility to conduct business.
Advertisement
But several on the seven-member council say now is not the time to decide where they stand, and they will reserve judgment until Mead & Hunt presents its findings and recommendation.
Mayor Deb Shaughnessy fielded an onslaught of public opinions last week regarding the relocation or expansion of the airport. More than 100 residents visited her office Wednesday.
Shaughnessy took comments from the crowd of concerned residents and said she welcomes comments from anyone in favor of an airport expansion. Still, she said the negative feedback is outweighing the positive.
"With the information that I have thus far, as far as relocation, it seems there are a lot of negative feelings about the relocation of the airport," she said.
Councilman Tim Lewis said he will be seeking out the opinions of city residents before deciding what direction he would like to see taken with the airport's future.
"I feel my task is going to be, and one I'm willing to take on is, to find out what residents of the city of Charlotte proper feel regarding the airport use and the future," he said.
Meanwhile, City Attorney Thomas Hitch has said the council could exercise the right of eminent domain to condemn property for use in the expansion or relocation of the airport. Hitch said government authorities can utilize the tool even if the property is located outside its boundaries.
Mead & Hunt has identified five possible relocation sites for the airport to date. Two are located in Eaton Township, where officials have stated a formal objection to housing the airport.
Three other relocation sites, in Walton, Benton and Carmel townships, are being considered as well.
Council vote on expansion might happen in spring
Lansing State Journal
CORRECTION: Benton Township no longer is being considered a site for the possible relocation of Charlotte’s Fitch H. Beach Municipal Airport. A story on Page 1B of Monday’s State Journal was incorrect.
CHARLOTTE - The final decision regarding Fitch H. Beach Airport's future now rests with the City Council.
The council is waiting on the results of Mead & Hunt's feasibility study, which are expected in April. The firm has been hired by the city to conduct a study on expanding the airport's 3,500-foot runway to 5,000 feet.
City officials have expressed interest in expanding the existing airport or relocating it to accommodate corporate jets from area companies that have expressed an interest in using the facility to conduct business.
Advertisement
But several on the seven-member council say now is not the time to decide where they stand, and they will reserve judgment until Mead & Hunt presents its findings and recommendation.
Mayor Deb Shaughnessy fielded an onslaught of public opinions last week regarding the relocation or expansion of the airport. More than 100 residents visited her office Wednesday.
Shaughnessy took comments from the crowd of concerned residents and said she welcomes comments from anyone in favor of an airport expansion. Still, she said the negative feedback is outweighing the positive.
"With the information that I have thus far, as far as relocation, it seems there are a lot of negative feelings about the relocation of the airport," she said.
Councilman Tim Lewis said he will be seeking out the opinions of city residents before deciding what direction he would like to see taken with the airport's future.
"I feel my task is going to be, and one I'm willing to take on is, to find out what residents of the city of Charlotte proper feel regarding the airport use and the future," he said.
Meanwhile, City Attorney Thomas Hitch has said the council could exercise the right of eminent domain to condemn property for use in the expansion or relocation of the airport. Hitch said government authorities can utilize the tool even if the property is located outside its boundaries.
Mead & Hunt has identified five possible relocation sites for the airport to date. Two are located in Eaton Township, where officials have stated a formal objection to housing the airport.
Three other relocation sites, in Walton, Benton and Carmel townships, are being considered as well.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
My Letter to the Charlotte City Council
Charlotte City Council,
I was given this form to send in regarding the proposed expansion of the airport. I would like nothing better than to be able to form an opinion and express it on the good or bad of the proposed airport expansion. Unfortunately, I cannot do that because this entire process was done in secrecy.
When they held the “open house” last week, it was the first I’d heard of this project. What is even more disturbing is that I was not informed of the Open House until 2:00 that day and I was informed by a neighbor. Gossip proved to be more reliable than elected officials.
I asked when this study was first set up and was told it was in 2005. This was kept quiet from the people that are directly involved for nearly two years! I asked why we weren’t given any formal notice of the open house and I was told that post cards were sent out and that the confusion or lost cards must be because our mail comes through Kalamazoo.
I also asked if a decision had been made yet. I was told that a site hadn’t been selected yet. The noticeable part of that is that they didn’t say that it hadn’t been decided yet to go through with the project. Just that they hadn’t yet chosen a site yet.
They couldn’t tell us which businesses were interested in using the new airport but they did say that it was to help the existing businesses cut costs of transportation from Battle Creek, Lansing and Jackson.
At the open house, they had charts, outlines, aerial photos and they gave us a handout with all of those as well. However, they had one chart which was a matrix that was not included in the handout. I asked where I could get a copy of it and was told that I could get it from their website. They suggested that we go through your website to find it. I did. Your website had nothing that I could find showing this project. I did find their website and all of the papers that were handed out, but not the matrix.
This entire project was done behind the scenes and not out in the open. The City Council of Charlotte does not represent me. They weren’t voted for or against by me because I’m not in their area. Yet, the Charlotte City Council is making a decision regarding my residence.
Your mayor is quoted in the weekend paper “the issue of eminent domain is what frightens people”. Later in the story she’s quoted as saying “This is an emotional issue, when you talk about the possibility of taking someone’s property.”
Eminent Domain was voted on last November and was beaten 80%-20%. I don’t think Eminent Domain even applies unless there is a loophole that I’m not aware.
What saddens, disappoints and disgusts me more than anything is elected officials continue to hide what they are doing and then spring it on an area as quietly as possible. However, it doesn’t surprise me. When I lived in Dansville I was on the Village Council and saw the same attempts being made there to hide things, albeit on a much smaller scale.
This entire thing is nothing more than lying to the people. Lying by omission is still lying. Notice that I haven’t even spoken to the merits of the project. I don’t want to speak to them because I don’t believe that we have all of the facts. I believe that we have more information, or at least that more people know about it than you wanted to know about it at this time, than what was originally planned, but I can’t trust that we can make an informed decision because I cannot trust that we have been given all of the information.
Your mayor also says that more public meetings are needed. I can only ask why. If you’ve already been hiding things, how can I trust that there isn’t more hidden?
I will be attending the Walton Twp. meeting tonight and if anyone is interested in opinions there, I will be saying that I’m against this project because of the underhanded way in which it was done. People that don’t represent me in any government body are working to take my property without my input and without fear of losing my vote. I am also under no illusions that this letter, nor any other comments sent in are going to be paid any attention.
Brett Young
I was given this form to send in regarding the proposed expansion of the airport. I would like nothing better than to be able to form an opinion and express it on the good or bad of the proposed airport expansion. Unfortunately, I cannot do that because this entire process was done in secrecy.
When they held the “open house” last week, it was the first I’d heard of this project. What is even more disturbing is that I was not informed of the Open House until 2:00 that day and I was informed by a neighbor. Gossip proved to be more reliable than elected officials.
I asked when this study was first set up and was told it was in 2005. This was kept quiet from the people that are directly involved for nearly two years! I asked why we weren’t given any formal notice of the open house and I was told that post cards were sent out and that the confusion or lost cards must be because our mail comes through Kalamazoo.
I also asked if a decision had been made yet. I was told that a site hadn’t been selected yet. The noticeable part of that is that they didn’t say that it hadn’t been decided yet to go through with the project. Just that they hadn’t yet chosen a site yet.
They couldn’t tell us which businesses were interested in using the new airport but they did say that it was to help the existing businesses cut costs of transportation from Battle Creek, Lansing and Jackson.
At the open house, they had charts, outlines, aerial photos and they gave us a handout with all of those as well. However, they had one chart which was a matrix that was not included in the handout. I asked where I could get a copy of it and was told that I could get it from their website. They suggested that we go through your website to find it. I did. Your website had nothing that I could find showing this project. I did find their website and all of the papers that were handed out, but not the matrix.
This entire project was done behind the scenes and not out in the open. The City Council of Charlotte does not represent me. They weren’t voted for or against by me because I’m not in their area. Yet, the Charlotte City Council is making a decision regarding my residence.
Your mayor is quoted in the weekend paper “the issue of eminent domain is what frightens people”. Later in the story she’s quoted as saying “This is an emotional issue, when you talk about the possibility of taking someone’s property.”
Eminent Domain was voted on last November and was beaten 80%-20%. I don’t think Eminent Domain even applies unless there is a loophole that I’m not aware.
What saddens, disappoints and disgusts me more than anything is elected officials continue to hide what they are doing and then spring it on an area as quietly as possible. However, it doesn’t surprise me. When I lived in Dansville I was on the Village Council and saw the same attempts being made there to hide things, albeit on a much smaller scale.
This entire thing is nothing more than lying to the people. Lying by omission is still lying. Notice that I haven’t even spoken to the merits of the project. I don’t want to speak to them because I don’t believe that we have all of the facts. I believe that we have more information, or at least that more people know about it than you wanted to know about it at this time, than what was originally planned, but I can’t trust that we can make an informed decision because I cannot trust that we have been given all of the information.
Your mayor also says that more public meetings are needed. I can only ask why. If you’ve already been hiding things, how can I trust that there isn’t more hidden?
I will be attending the Walton Twp. meeting tonight and if anyone is interested in opinions there, I will be saying that I’m against this project because of the underhanded way in which it was done. People that don’t represent me in any government body are working to take my property without my input and without fear of losing my vote. I am also under no illusions that this letter, nor any other comments sent in are going to be paid any attention.
Brett Young
Saturday, February 10, 2007
More on the Airport proposal
Three things. First, at the IGA in Olivet, the girl working the checkout lane has a petition to sign if you're against the new airport.
Second, Above is a comment sheet that can be sent or taken to the Charlotte City Council. If anyone has a fax number or E-mail address for them, I'll post it on here and you can send it that way.
Third, there are two coming meetings. First is the City of Charlotte City Council meeting on Monday, February 12, at 7:00 p.m. The second meeting is the Walton Twp board meeting on February 13, at 7:30 p.m.
Fill out your comments on the airport by printing out the form below and filling it out and drop it off at the meeting on Monday or mail it to the address listed at the bottom.
Second, Above is a comment sheet that can be sent or taken to the Charlotte City Council. If anyone has a fax number or E-mail address for them, I'll post it on here and you can send it that way.
Third, there are two coming meetings. First is the City of Charlotte City Council meeting on Monday, February 12, at 7:00 p.m. The second meeting is the Walton Twp board meeting on February 13, at 7:30 p.m.
Fill out your comments on the airport by printing out the form below and filling it out and drop it off at the meeting on Monday or mail it to the address listed at the bottom.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Proposed Airport
Proposed Airport ProjectAbove is the picture of the proposed airport project. Following is a breakdown of the "meeting" on January 31, 2007 to explain this.
The Meeting
This wasn't really a meeting at all. When we arrived, there was a table in the lobby to sign in. They handed us a small packet and included in the packet was a copy of a map (shown above). After signing in, I went into a room that had easels set up. On the easels were pretty much the rest of what was in the packet. In addition they had four or five people to talk to anyone that wanted to talk and ask questions. There was no presentation other than the easels and talking to the people assigned to the room.
As the crowd became larger, it was difficult to hear people asking questions and even more difficult to hear the answers. This is what I gathered from the answers that I could hear.
1. The study was started in 2005.
2. They claim that businesses want the airport expanded to save them expenses because they now must get their goods delivered from Lansing, Jackson or Battle Creek's airports. With the airport in Charlotte, they could save on some of the transportation costs.
3. They chose 11 locations. They eliminated a few bringing it down to 8. They further reduced it down to five locations.
4. They said they had attended township meetings in recent weeks of the townships remaining on the list.
5. They will next present their proposal to the Charlotte city council on March 7, 2007.
6. The final decision will be in April of 2007.
7. There is one change to the map that they gave us. In Section H, it is in the shape of a J. They have eliminated the vertical section which is east of Matthews Road. So the proposal for H is actually from Marshall Rd, East to Matthews Road, North to Osborn Rd and west to Miller Hwy.
8. They had a matrix up on an easel, but it wasn't provided in the packet. I asked why they didn't include that in the packet and they said we could get it at their website or the Charlotte website. Their website is http://www.meadhunt.com/index.php/projects/charlotte_purpose/nc/
Note: I went to their site and could not find the matrix. I went to the Charlotte website and couldn't find any mention of the project. It may be there, but I didn't find it.
The people there to answer questions also said that this project would be decided by the Charlotte City Council. If the area selected is outside of Charlotte, the affected township can still cause it to be stopped.
My OPINION:
The people there to explain everything were from MeadHunt. They seemed to be the salespeople for this project. After hearing some of their answers to questions asked by me and others while I was there, I tried to put myself in the place of the Charlotte City Council.
Charlotte is the largest city in the area. Olivet is small. Bellevue is small, Potterville is small. Charlotte has an airport already. They could decide to use the existing airport but if I were on the council, I wouldn't want that. First of all, the airport would have to be expanded. They claim that it's not reasonable due to Island Hwy. That road would interfere, or have to be moved or eliminated.
To be on the Charlotte City Council, I'd have to live in Charlotte. I wouldn't want a larger airport there because the air traffic noise would be constantly over my house. So I'm going to want to use one of the other areas.
A benefit to the area is I-69 which runs through Charlotte. If you look at the areas around Charlotte, you'll see that much of it is farmland. However, I-69 runs close to that farm land along Marshall Rd towards Charlotte. The distance between Charlotte and Olivet seems to be greater than heading north along I-69.
Just from what I just mentioned in the previous four paragraphs, if I were on the city council, I'd chose any area away from Charlotte. I would also want it close to I-69 and the best position for that is either site I or site H.
Site L is further away from I69 and very close to Charlotte. Site F is further away from I-69, so I wouldn't even consider that one. Site A is where the airport is and they seem to have already ruled that one out, despite it being on the list. This leaves the two sites to the south.
Site I comes right up to I-69 and site H comes within a mile of I-69. There is already an exit at site I, which is at Five point/Cochran and Marshall Roads. However, if site H was chosen, there is an exit at Ainger Road, and it would be four miles to the Charlotte Exit at Cochran Rd. It would be very easy to put another exit at Stein Rd for an airport if they chose Site H.
Unfortunately, the only decision that matters at this point is the Charlotte City Council. Those of us that don't live in CHarlotte are stuck with their decision if we're the site chosen. I believe the site that they'll choose will be either site I or site H.
I live right in the middle of site H. Should either of those sites be chosen, I won't like it. If site I is chosen, I'll be left with the noise from the airport. If site H is chosen, I'm in the part that will be taken.
I have the packet that was handed out and am willing to e-mail it if anyone needs it. You can write me at BYoung7411@yahoo.com.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
