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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.