One for the little guy

[Buckterrier]

I have seen surveyors on my road all week. While taking a morning run Saturday I ask them what they were doing. They said they were surveying the farmland for the state. They mentioned by name the farmers name. I knew he has been trying to sell the development rights to the state so it could not be taken by eminent domain.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/21/scotus.eminent.domain/index.html
The folks up here have had to fight off a proposed airport, a prison, and a couple of years ago we fought off an industrial park. I was involved in the last one. The newspaper did an editorial in the Sunday paper with a cartoon of "Plain Hill" residents in a bunker with our eyes poking through it, not very flattering, nor was the article. In a nutshell there's an industrial park behind us a bit that is half empty, why build another. But that's a whole nother story.
This afternoon I took a jar of my pickled jalapano peppers and went over to visit Gene. He is a 75 year old farmer that still hays the fields. I was told the agreement is that nothing can be developed for 99 years. While I'm sure he has made quite a few enemies he has made quite a few friends also. I piss and moan about the state of Ct. and rightfully so imho. But I do have a little piece of paradise here. I happen to be very fortunate. Here is the view I will be able to enjoy for years to come instead of looking at a friggin' Walmart.

[Dueller]

So let me get this right, Mark. The farmer is selling his land to the state but they've agreed not to develop it for 99 years? Hmmmmmmm. What are the plans for it in the interim? Sounds like a trick to me.

On the other case in the supreme court, I bet the homeowners lose with the make up of the current SCOTUS and some of their recdent decisions. Keep us posted

[legion]

I give it five years before the state weasels out of any such agreement and starts developing the land.

I went to a university whose land was donated to the State of Illinois by the Mennonite Church under the conditions that: 1) The town founded to house the university, Normal, be dry and 2) that the university never allow fraternities or sororities to be formed. Failure to meet these conditions, and the land (and the university on it) would revert back to the Mennonite Church (which still exists).

Guess what? When I went there, there were fraternities and sororities and Normal was not a dry town. When my parents went there, there were no fraternities and sororities and Normal was dry. What happened? The town and the university sued the Mennonite Church (I believe citing the Establishment Clause) and weaseled out of the original agreement.

[Buckterrier]

Sorry, I didn't explain very well. It is still his land and he can still farm it. He sold the developing rights to the state. The state is buying farm land in Ct. for preservation purposes. There is another group called Open Land or something to that effect that he was thinking about doing the same thing. But apparently they would tell him when he could cut the fields etc. Depending on when birds were nesting, all sorts of things. To much hastle.

And yes you are so right, they did lose. One of the big issues was that a private company, the developer, will make millions while the homeowners got squat for their property.

[Buckterrier]

Originally Posted by legion

I give it five years before the state weasels out of any such agreement and starts developing the land.

I went to a university whose land was donated to the State of Illinois by the Mennonite Church under the conditions that: 1) The town founded to house the university, Normal, be dry and 2) that the university never allow fraternities or sororities to be formed. Failure to meet these conditions, and the land (and the university on it) would revert back to the Mennonite Church (which still exists).

Guess what? When I went there, there were fraternities and sororities and Normal was not a dry town. When my parents went there, there were no fraternities and sororities and Normal was dry. What happened? The town and the university sued the Mennonite Church (I believe citing the Establishment Clause) and weaseled out of the original agreement.

Would not suprise me 1 bit!

[Dueller]

Originally Posted by Buckterrier

Sorry, I didn't explain very well. It is still his land and he can still farm it. He sold the developing rights to the state. The state is buying farm land in Ct. for preservation purposes. There is another group called Open Land or something to that effect that he was thinking about doing the same thing. But apparently they would tell him when he could cut the fields etc. Depending on when birds were nesting, all sorts of things. To much hastle.

And yes you are so right, they did lose. One of the big issues was that a private company, the developer, will make millions while the homeowners got squat for their property.

Oooops... thought the CNN article was feb 2008...realized it was '05.

Down heah in Mississippi, its done a bit different. Several thousand acres of raw land was being quietly purchased by family members of certain high ranking politicians at huge discounts (say 500-750/acre). Lo and behold, a Nissan Plant was considering relocating here. The politico's went to work offering incentives to woo them here. Nissan decided to come here and wouldn't ya know....that land went to them for an average of $20K per acre.

[Buckterrier]

Originally Posted by Dueller

Oooops... thought the CNN article was feb 2008...realized it was '05.

Down heah in Mississippi, its done a bit different. Several thousand acres of raw land was being quietly purchased by family members of certain high ranking politicians at huge discounts (say 500-750/acre). Lo and behold, a Nissan Plant was considering relocating here. The politico's went to work offering incentives to woo them here. Nissan decided to come here and wouldn't ya know....that land went to them for an average of $20K per acre.

Why doesn't that surprise me? More people collecting money?

[Dueller]

Originally Posted by Buckterrier

Why doesn't that surprise me? More people collecting money?

No...they earned that money!!!!!!!! Just right place right time. And right (inside) information.

[LakeCleElum]

I agree you are very fortunate; my 80 year old mother had a view like that 2 years ago....Now she looks at a WalMart......

[Dueller]

Speaking of Walmart and views. The town I live in has a longtime female mayor (whose husband may go to jail of the Nissan plant land scheme above) and she is adamant on protecting the beauty of her fiefdom. WQe have one interstate interchange and she refused to allow it unless it was aesthetically pleasing. Ended up holding her ground until the transportation dept spent an extra $1M for decorative brick/stone work. As far as all the commercial development, the Walmart had to be architecturally integrated with inconspicuos signage. This included the rear of the WM that faced the interstae. While you might htink her goal is noble, she's a terror and an extortionist.

I just represented a client in a zoning law dispute and won. She was trying to enforce one of her illegal zoning ordinances as a criminal matter. Needless to say I'm not on her xmas card list.

[Buckterrier]

Originally Posted by LakeCleElum

I agree you are very fortunate; my 80 year old mother had a view like that 2 years ago....Now she looks at a WalMart......

My condolences to your mother, I mean that with all sincerity. It must break her heart. Me, I'd move but I'm not 80.

[sammyg2]

Sure is a whole lot of nothing in that picture.
They should build something worthwhile there.

[The Gaijin]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Sure is a whole lot of nothing in that picture.
They should build something worthwhile there.

Try an imagine an Orange County California circa 1945. Now go outside your door and look around.

[Buckterrier]

Originally Posted by LakeCleElum

I agree you are very fortunate; my 80 year old mother had a view like that 2 years ago....Now she looks at a WalMart......

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Sure is a whole lot of nothing in that picture.
They should build something worthwhile there.

I think low income housing would even be nicer than a Walmart