The Jimmy Deloach Connector Project will include the construction of a road on new alignment beginning at Bourne Avenue and extend 3.1 miles north to the existing Jimmy Deloach Parkway located East of I-95 near the Port of Savannah’s Gate.  The project is primarily located in Port Wentworth, Chatham County, Georgia.  New interchanges will be constructed at both Grange Road and Jimmy Deloach Parkway.  The project is needed to provide faster truck movement into and out of the Savannah Port from SR 21 and provide an alternate route to accommodate increasing truck traffic entering and exiting the Savannah Port.

In December 2011, the Georgia Department of Transportation awarded a $73 million contract for its construction.  The Savannah Morning News said in a December article that “the Port authority and state transportation officials have said the new roadway is critical to improving port access and growing the state’s logistics industry”.

View the layout of the project below, which shows the affected properties and road alignment (the file is large and may take time to download):

Jimmy Deloach Parkway Connector Project Layout

Property acquisition is underway for this project, and The State of Georgia has the authority to use eminent domain if negotiations can not be reached.  If you are affected by this project, you should know that the government is required by law to pay you just compensation.  The calculation of just compensation often involves a wide range of issues which government appraisers typically do not consider such as the highest and best use of the property, damages to the remainder parcel, and/or special damages to the property such as restricted access, zoning, permitting, etc. as a result of the taking.

If you reject the government’s offer, it still has to pay you that money, and this does not jeopardize your right to get more money in the eminent domain hearing.  Oftentimes, a property owner will only receive just compensation by allowing condemnation to occur. In condemnation, an owner can show that the rules for highest and best use will produce a higher price than the amount offered by the government.

Learn more about Georgia eminent domain.

Suggested reading

The Importance of Selecting an Appraiser

3 Things to Consider when Speaking to the Authorities

Suggested videos:

Eminent domain strategy considerations

Eminent domain damages

Eminent domain severance damages

Contact us for more information on this project and your rights in the eminent domain process.

In this upcoming blog series, we’ll be discussing partial takings in eminent domain cases.    A partial taking occurs when the condemning authority only acquires a portion of the property, not the entire parcel.  The portion of the property that is left is known as the remainder. The value of the land and any improvements to the land which are actually taken in an eminent domain proceeding are known as the direct damages, and the value of the remainder parcel is known as the severance damages.

When calculating just compensation in partial taking eminent domain cases, we previously discussed determining the value of the parcel before and subtracting from it the value of the remainder parcel, a valuation concept known as the “before and after rule”.  In determining the value of the before parcel, there is a term commonly referred to as the larger parcel, which as the name suggests, is the parcel of land owned by the property owner before the acquisition.

This larger parcel concept plays an important role in the calculation of just compensation in a partial taking eminent domain case.  Let’s say for example a condemning authority needs to acquire 5 acres of land from a property owner.  If the Larger parcel is 240 acres, the per acre before value will be significantly less than if the larger parcel were only 20 acres.  The determination of the larger parcel in the before situation is very critical because it will help establish the unitary value of the portion of land acquired in the before and after analysis.

Determining the larger parcel is not always obvious.  There are different analyses to use when identifying the larger parcel for the property owner.  Sometimes it will be more advantageous for the larger parcel to be bigger; in other situations, the larger parcel might be smaller.  It’s important for property owners affected by a partial taking eminent domain case to make sure the correct larger parcel is utilized for their particular case.

In the last several articles, we’ve discussed the history and power of eminent domain and the types of eminent domain takings.  To end this series, we’d like to address the several points of attack to challenging a condemnation decision.  Once a condemnation petition is filed, a property owner may challenge:

1. Authority to Condemn
2. Public Use
3. Just Compensation

Authority to Condemn

In an eminent domain proceeding, a property owner may challenge a condemnor’s authority to condemn.  In some states a property owner must challenge the legality of the condemnation separate from the issue of just compensation.

In Iowa, a condemnee may challenge the initiating action of the condemnor by injunction, mandamus, and certiorari (Id. At 865).  In Wisconsin, if an owner wishes to contest any aspect of condemnation besides compensation, he must file an action in the circuit court within 40 days of receiving the jurisdictional (final) offer (Wis. Stat. § 32.05(5)).  In other states, a challenge to the authority to condemn does not require an action outside of the eminent domain proceeding.  For example, in Illinois, the lawfulness of the taking is determined as part of the condemnation process (735 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 30/20-5-10).

As stated in a previous article, the only entity that intrinsically holds the power of eminent domain is the state.  Other potential condemnors must have the power delegated to them by legislative act (See supra, note 24).

Public Use

The federal and state constitutions limit the exercise of eminent domain to the taking of property for a public use. A property owner has the right to appeal a condemnation decision by challenging the public use.

“….Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”, The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  “[O]ne person’s property may not be taken for the benefit of another private person without a justifying public purpose, even though compensation be paid” (Haw. Hous. Auth. V Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, 241 (1984)).

Although the term ‘public use’ does not have a precise definition, we describe public use as the justification which the government must establish in its powers of eminent domain to acquire private property. Examples of endeavors which satisfy the public purpose include roads, parks, schools, other public buildings, removal of a public nuisance, elimination of blight, or any other endeavor where the purpose of the project serves a public good or need.  Whether the use for which private property is to be taken is a public one is a judicial question to be determined by the courts.  However, the courts seem to have avoided defining it lest the definition formulated prove an embarrassment in subsequent cases (6A Fletcher, supra, § 2914)

The removal of blight as a public use is fairly uncontroversial.  Blight removal as an exercise of eminent domain was approved by the Supreme Court over 50 years ago.  Nevertheless, the expansive “public use” definition struck by the Court in Kelo v City of New London caused a firestorm of state legislative action.  The U.S. House of Representatives immediately passed a resolution denouncing Kelo by a lopsided 365-33 vote, and forty-four states enacted post-Kelo reform legislation to curb eminent domain abuse. For those readers not familiar with the case, Kelo involved the removal of residential homes and investment properties through eminent domain that, although not blighted, were located within a blighted redevelopment area.

One scholar has evaluated these post-Kelo reform laws and classified them as either “effective” or “ineffective”.  Reform laws are classified as “ineffective” if they forbid economic development condemnations but essentially allow them to continue under another name, as in the case of states with broad definitions of “blight” that allow virtually any property to be declared blighted and condemned (93 Minn. L. Rev. at 2114).  A sample of Midwestern states shows the following breakdown:

Minnesota: Effective

South Dakota: Effective

Illinois: Ineffective

Iowa: Ineffective

Missouri: Ineffective

Nebraska: Ineffective

Wisconsin: Ineffective

The 6 states that have failed to pass post-Kelo reform measures are:  New York, New Jersey, Arkansas, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Oklahoma.

Just Compensation

Unlike public use or authority, a property owner generally does not have to raise the issue of just compensation in a separate proceeding or specific procedural moment (i.e. hearing on legality of taking) in order to challenge its sufficiency.  If a property owner receives an unfair offer, then they should appeal the award.

In Iowa, a property owner or condemnor may appeal a commissioners’ award and challenge the amount of compensation within 30 days of the mailing of the award (Iowa Code § 6B.18(1)).  In New York, a property owner has three years after service of notice of acquisition or vesting, (whichever is later) to file a claim for additional damages with the clerk of court having jurisdiction over the matter. (NY EM DOM PROC § 503).  This is provided they did not sign the offer for final payment.

The right to a jury trial varies from state to state.  Most offer a jury trial at some point along the way.  Some states, like Nebraska, do not.  Rather than being a guarantee, a jury may have to be specifically requested in some states, such as Illinois.

Over the last several articles, we’ve discussed the history and powers of eminent domain, the types of eminent domain takings and the way in which a condemnation decision can be appealed.  One of the most important things to take away from this series of articles is that property owners have rights in the eminent domain process if they choose to assert them.   The eminent domain process is dictated by each state’s statutes, lending variations in the process by state.  It’s important to know your rights and to understand the eminent domain process in your state before taking action in an eminent domain case.

Last spring, our firm participated in a mock congressional hearing on the claims of the Harris Neck Land Trust at Emory Law School in Georgia.  The hearing was designed to assist the Harris Neck Land Trust effort to win congressional backing to recover the land now controlled by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.  If you are not familiar with this movement, you should read more about their story.

Significant progress was made in December on the struggle for Justice by former members of the Harris Neck community and their descendants.  A hearing before the House of Representative’s Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs was held on December 15th, 2011.  Many issues were considered, including the eminent domain violations in the 1942 taking, and the Trust’s plans for its proposed new community.  The Harris Neck Land Trust gained the support of the subcommittee members who further directed the Fish & Wildlife Service to carefully examine how they obtained this property, determine whether all members were fully and justly compensated, and consider the remedies available to provide justice to all members of Harris Neck.  The next step in the process is the introduction, and then Committee consideration, of a legislative solution.

Read the Harris Neck Press Release

The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently reviewed 260 North 12th Street, LLC v. Wisconsin DOT, 2010 WI App 138, 329 Wis. 2d 748, 792 N.W.2d 572 and took the majority state opinion that in condemnation proceedings, the government is allowed to introduce evidence of environmental contamination and future remediation costs to reduce the amount of just compensation it must pay to a property owner.

As the law firm representing the plaintiff, we believe that the affects of contamination and related remediation costs should not be considered when determining just compensation in an eminent domain claim.  Introducing evidence of contamination and remediation costs allows the government to acquire the property at a discounted rate and then allows them to sue the same property owner for the costs of clean-up.   The landowner is therefore subject to a form of double-taking.

Neighboring state Minnesota held in Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda, 789 N.W.2d 860 (Minn. 2010) that evidence of environmental contamination and clean-up costs are generally inadmissible in condemnation cases, based on fairness and due process considerations.  The Wisconsin Courts failed to adopt Minnesota’s rule because the cases presented in arguments were based upon the assumption that a subsequent environmental action against the property owner is a certainty, when in fact it isn’t.

It came as no surprise when Wisconsin took the majority state opinion by ruling in favor of the condemnor in these cases. However, their holdings are not equitable in a double taking contamination eminent domain case and the state will be forced to modify their holdings when this issue arises in the future.

Read the Supreme Court Opinion.  Learn more about our position on contamination valuation in eminent domain claims.

Project Neon is a corridor program developed to re-design I-15 between the Spaghetti Bowl and Sahara Avenue in the heart of Las Vegas.  This $1.5 billion project will affect hundreds of homeowners and business owners along the project corridor.  The project extends 3.7 miles and includes more than 13 lane miles of new bridges, a new HOV connector between US 95 and I-15, and direct access ramps at Wall Street, as well as local traffic improvements on Charleston Boulevard, Martin Luther King Boulevard, and Grand Central Parkway.  Project Neon is divided into 5 phases consisting of the following improvements:

Phase I

• HOV connector between US 95 and I-15
• Direct HOV access ramps at Wall Street
• Reconstruction of the Charleston Boulevard Interchange
• Grand Central Parkway/Western Avenue connector over Charleston Boulevard
• Slip ramp from the Charleston Boulevard Interchange to Alta Drive/Bonneville Avenue

Phase II

• Martin Luther King Boulevard/Industrial Road connector
• Oakley Boulevard/Wyoming Avenue overpass at UPRR

Phase III

• Full reconstruction of Charleston Boulevard Interchange
• Reconstruction of I-15 north of Oakey Boulevard

Phase IV

• Southbound I-15 ramps between Spaghetti Bowl and Sahara Avenue

Phase V

• Northbound I-15 ramps between Spaghetti Bowl and Sahara Avenue
• Reconstruction of I-15 south of Oakey Boulevard

The Federal Highway Administration issued a Record of Decision, or ROD, on Project Neon in October 2010, officially approving the project’s final Environmental Impact Statement.  The Nevada Department of Transportation is initiating phase one of Project Neon.

Through the end of 2012, the focus will be on property acquisition and major utility relocations.

Phase I is estimated to cost between $370M-$470M and the total cost of the project is estimated at $1.8B.  The Regional Transportation Plan has programmed funding through 2030, but it has not been appropriated.  Nearly $30 million has been appropriated in the Transportation Improvement Program for phase one in 2011.

Phase I could be under final design and construction as early as 2013 and last approximately 3 years.

Property Acquisition and Nevada Eminent Domain

We’ve talked to a handful of property owners in Phase I who have heard from the Nevada DOT but have not received an appraisal or an offer yet.   We anticipate that most of the property will be acquired in 2012, which was confirmed by the Nevada DOT.  Property owners affected by this project should know that they have rights if they choose to assert them.  Frequently, a property owner will only receive just compensation in Nevada eminent domain cases by allowing condemnation to occur.  In condemnation, a property owner can show that the rules for highest and best use will produce a higher price than the amount offered by the government.  Also, government appraisers often have long-standing relationships with the government, and their appraisals may contain other errors such as using incorrect comparables or ignoring severance damages.

Before settling with the government, it’s important to know what level of just compensation you are entitled to receive.   Learn more about Nevada eminent domain.

Project Maps and Additional Resources

Project Neon Phase I map

Nevada DOT Project Neon Website

Judge Madden’s interim ruling on Willets Point is already old news.  However, given our interest in NYC’s land grab projects, aka “redevelopment projects”, we wanted to at least touch on the topic and direct our readers to several great articles previously published on this matter.

First of all, we’re not shy about our stance on NYC land grab projects, which typically involve  “taking from small, middle-class owned businesses and giving to the wealthy folks with city hall connections”, a process that Gideon Kanner describes and rightfully labels  “reverse Robin Hood” in his recent article on Willets Point.  The Willets Point Project is no exception to this rule.  The NYC EDC is planning on redeveloping the 61 acre site which is the last underdeveloped area nestled between Citi Field and downtown Flushing.

The Bait and Switch tactic used in this project relates to the construction, or lack thereof, of new ramps on the neighboring Van Wick Expressway as outlined in the environmental impact statement (EIS).  In order to deal with heightened traffic resulting from the development of Willets Point, the project proposal considered the ramps an essential part of the project.  The EIS assumed the ramps would be built, and the City stated during oral arguments that if the ramps are not approved then they would not proceed with the plan as conceived.  Furthermore, the City stated during the original Article 78 proceeding that it would not go forward with its exercise of eminent domain power until approval for the ramps had been obtained.

Lo-and-behold, the City abandoned its proposal to build the highway ramps after it was revealed that the City’s ramp study submitted to the Federal Highway Administration, contained assumptions directly contradicting the assumptions of the EIS submitted to the City Council for the redevelopment.  Rick Hills of PrawfBlogs highlights the oddities of this contradiction by noting that consulting firm AKRF is responsible for compiling both reports.  The City has now decided to carry out the project in stages (although the EIS analyzes the project as a single project), and to exercise its eminent domain power to proceed with a portion of the project, without approval of the ramps.

Thankfully, Judge Madden recognized the severity of this contradiction in her opinion and stated “I conclude that the integrity of the decision-making process has been impacted and sufficient reasons exist for me to consider vacating my prior judgment.”  She further states “I conclude that I have the inherent power to entertain petitioners’ concerns regarding the City’s new staged approach to the development of Willets Point and to consider the adequacy of technical Memorandum, and that it is in the interests of Justice to do so”.  The order calls for further proceedings and to await the ruling of the Appellate Division in the right-to-take eminent domain proceeding, whose outcome may resolve the issues addressed in this case.

In our last article, we discussed the definition of eminent domain, the right of eminent domain and its history.  Armed with the knowledge contained therein, we’ll continue our discussion by reviewing the types of eminent domain “takings”.

In addition to real property, all property rights and interests are subject to the power of eminent domain.  This includes:

• Fee taking
• Taking or modification of existing easements
• Creation of new easements
• Riparian Rights (apart from appurtenant lands)

The only limitation upon the power to condemn rights over real property that has been seriously advanced is that a right to be taken by eminent domain must be capable of valuation in money.  (1A Sackman, supra, § 2.1).  In many circumstances, an eminent domain ‘taking’ necessitates more than just payment to the property owner for the land acquired.  For example, a private utility company may invoke its power of eminent domain to acquire an easement to bury a gas pipeline or to construct high voltage power lines across a property.  The acquisition may ultimately restrict or inhibit development on the remaining parcel, thus preventing the property owner from utilizing their property to its highest and best use.  In this situation, a property owner must be compensated for the loss of development potential in addition to compensation for the easement.

Similarly, the loss of air rights is considered a property right that constitutes a taking and requires the payment of just compensation in eminent domain law. The issue of air rights generally arises in one of two different configurations. The first and most common configuration involves the acquisition of air rights from a real estate owner by an aviation authority.  Learn more about air rights in eminent domain.

Last but not least, you can probably imagine and very well appreciate that having access to a property contributes to the overall value of the property.  In fact, if you don’t have access, it will be difficult to generate any value at all for the property.  If a condemning authority removes access to your property or if access is minimized to a level that changes the highest and best use for your property, than this constitutes a taking and the payment of just compensation under eminent domain law is required.

Beyond the traditional exercise of eminent domain, there are other types of “takings” including:

• Inverse Condemnation
• Regulatory Takings

Learn more about inverse condemnation and regulatory takings.

Participating in the Condemnation Process

Once the condemning authority establishes the taking, the state or delegated condemning authority typically initiates the eminent domain process by petitioning for condemnation.  For example, Illinois (735 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 30/10-5-10), Iowa (Iowa Code § 6B.3), Minnesota (Minn. Stat. § 117.055), Missouri (Mo. Ann. Stat. § 523.010-523.030) and South Dakota (S.D. Codified Laws § 21-35-1) eminent domain statutes direct the condemning authority to initiate the condemnation process by filing a petition.

In contrast, Wisconsin law directs the condemning authority to make a “jurisdictional offer” to the property owner, who must then file a claim in circuit court to assert their rights in the eminent domain process; including their right to additional just compensation. (Wis. Stat. § 32.05(9)(a), 32.05(2a).  Additionally, Massachusetts eminent domain law directs the property owner to petition the court for damages if they are not satisfied with the condemnor’s offer (Mass. Gen. Laws. Ann 79 § 14).

Although insofar as the courts are concerned, an eminent domain proceeding does not “begin” until a petition is filed, a condemnor will often contact the property owner prior to filing a petition to attempt to acquire the property amicably.  In some states, statutes require the condemnor to attempt to acquire via negotiations before a petition is brought (Iowa, Iowa Code § 6B.2B; Nebraska, Neb.Rev.St. § 76-702, 76-704.01).

Once a petition has been filed, many states appoint condemnation “commissioners” to determine just compensation for the taking.  For example:

Iowa: The County board will appoint 28 possible commissioners and the judge selects 6 commissioners to determine compensation (Iowa Code § 6B.3, 6B.4).

Minnesota: the Court will appoint 3 commissioners (Minn. Stat. § 117.075).

Nebraska: The Court will appoint 3 “appraisers”, although only one must be a credentialed real estate appraiser (Neb. Rev. St. § 76-706).

Wisconsin: the Court appoints 6, 9, or 12 commissioners depending on the size of county where condemnation is occurring (Wis. Stat. § 32.05, 32.08).

A property owner may settle for the commissioner’s award, or they may appeal the amount of just compensation.

In addition to appealing the amount of just compensation, a property owner may also challenge the authority to condemn and the public use.  In a subsequent article, we’ll discuss a property owners right to appeal a condemnation decision for additional just compensation, authority to condemn and the public use.

When I think about eminent domain, the haunting image of a large hand sweeping down from the sky and scooping up my house comes to mind.  Resonating inside my head are cases such as Kelo vs. the City of New London, Goldstein et al. v. N.Y.  State Urban Development Corporation; my Fifth Amendment rights, ‘land grab’, and even the poignant face of Big Brother looming from giant telescreens in Michael Radford’s 1984 film adaptation of George Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty-four.

Despite eminent domain’s negative connotations, laws and statutes exist to protect property owners like us if we choose to assert them.  Over the next several articles, we’ll discuss the power of eminent domain and its history; discuss the eminent domain process and dissect the property owner’s rights in the condemnation process.

To fully understand eminent domain and its powers, we should first look at the definition of eminent domain and understand the power of eminent domain.  One definition is the power of the sovereign to take property for “public use” without the owner’s consent. (Julius Sackmna, et al., Nichols on Eminent Domain § 1.11 (3d ed. 2005).  Our definition of eminent domain is simply the legal process that has been established to allow governments to gain ownership of private property.  Although just compensation is an essential element of the valid exercise of eminent domain power, it is not an essential element of the meaning of eminent domain.

Contrary to public opinion, eminent domain powers did not come from the federal and state constitutions but rather rests in the sovereign state.  This principle that the power of eminent domain is an attribute of sovereignty has developed from two schools of thought:  (1) Natural law theory, and; (2) the concept of sovereignty.  Most states have adopted the latter.  For example, Illinois case law states that “the right of eminent domain is an essential attribute of sovereignty, inherent in every independent government, and to be exercised in the discretion of the sovereign power, to promote the general welfare of the people” (Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. v Heiss, 141 Ill. 35, 31, N.E. 138 (1892).  Missouri case law supports this claim, “The right of eminent domain is inherent in every government.  In this state it is not conferred, but is limited by the constitution. (Kansas City v. Marsh oil Co., 140 Mo. 458, 41 S.W. 943 (1897).

The federal and state constitutions merely limit the power of eminent domain.  Part of these limitations is the payment of just compensation for the appropriated property.  The fifth amendment of the US Constitution states “[N]or shall private property be taken for a public use, without just compensation”.  The Wisconsin Constitution article I § 13 states “The property of no person shall be taken for public use without just compensation therefore”.

Although the government is required to pay you just compensation for your property, determining this amount is often a source of dispute because it involves a wide range of issues which the government may neglect to consider, such as the highest and best use for a property or damages to a remainder parcel.  Frequently, a property owner will only receive just compensation by allowing condemnation to occur.  We’ll investigate this process in more detail in a future article.

While exploring the history of eminent domain, we found that the power to take private property for public use has been exercised since the days of the Romans (See 1 Sackman, supra, § 1.12)   Although not so called, the power of eminent domain, along with the requirement of just compensation, was well established in England by the time of the American Revolution.  When the American colonies became a sovereign state “[t]hey retained for the purposes of government all the powers of the British Parliament…” (Munn v. Illinois, 94  U.S. 113 (1876).

The manifestation of eminent domain power limited by just compensation was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution in 1789.  While the states were fee to appropriate property using their own court systems, the power of the federal government to use its own courts to take property located in the states was not recognized until 1875 (Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367 (1875).

The history and power of eminent domain is well established and consequently generates minimal controversy when compared to other more volatile elements of the eminent domain process, such as just compensation and public use.  In subsequent articles, we’ll evaluate the types of eminent domain “takings”, participating in the eminent domain process and appealing a condemnation decision.

Read Eminent Domain Process, Powers and History Part 2

Photo courtesy of WSDOT

This project improves mobility by allowing motorists and freight to move north and south through metropolitan Spokane, from I-90 to US 395 at Wandermere. Once complete, the NSC will decrease travel time, fuel usage, and congestion, while improving safety by reducing collisions on local arterials.

When complete, the North Spokane Corridor will be a 60-mile per hour, 10.5 mile-long north/south limited access facility; that connects to I-90 on the south end (just west of the existing Thor/Freya Interchange) and connects to existing US 2 (at Farwell Road) and US 395 (at Wandermere) on the north end.

Interchanges will be built at locations along the corridor, to include: Trent Avenue (SR 290), Wellesley Avenue, Francis/Freya Street, Parksmith Drive, US 2, and US 395 at Wandermere.

The project consists of three phases as follows:

I-90 East and West from Hamilton to Fancher, and I-90 and existing NSC North to the Spokane River

click to enlarge

This section is commonly referred to as the ‘collector/distributor corridor’.  Currently property acquisitions are underway from willing sellers and acquisition began in the SE quadrant in July 2011

Spokane River to Francis

click to enlarge

The project extends North of the Spokane River and terminates at the Francis interchange.  Refinements to the existing designs from the Spokane River to the Francis Interchange have resulted in project savings of over $300 million dollars.  Limited right-of-way acquisitions are currently underway.

The environmental reevaluation for the Spokane River to Francis section will be completed in 2011.

The Spokane River to Francis is further divided into 6 segments, allowing WSDOT to complete the project in phases as funding is secured.  This section includes the following projects:

Project One: Francis Interchange
Project Two: Rowan North, which includes grading, structures and BNSF realignment.
Project Three: Euclid to Rowan, including grading, structures and BNSF realignment
Project Four: Wellesley Interchange
Project Five: Wellesley to Francis, including grading, paving and structures
Project Six: Spokane River to Wellesley, including grading, paving and structures

click to enlarge

Francis/Freya Interchange North to US 395

This project will construct a new highway on new location.   A total of 8 projects were funded by the 2003 “Nickel” Legislative Transportation Funding Package.  Six are complete and open to traffic (light blue).  It is anticipated that the last 2 contracts (in pink and pedestrian path in dark red) will be completed in late 2011 or early 2012.

For the Tiger Grant funded projects, construction began in 2010 on the NSC-Freya Street to Farwell Rd Southbound additional lanes project.  This 2 year project will complete the southbound lanes between Francis/Freya and Farewell Interchanges; by constructing 3 additional lanes, and seven bridges and roundabout.  The NSC and Parksmith interchange is also being constructed and the project could be complete in 2012.

We were told by WSDOT that property acquisition has resumed in the Francis to Market area and we’re waiting clarification regarding what this additional property will be used for.

The links below show the real estate acquisitions for the I-90 portion of the project as well as the Spokane River to Francis Redesign:

I-90 Real Estate Acquisition West

I-90 Real Estate Acquisition Central

I-90 Real Estate Acquisition East

Spokane River to Francis Redesign

Property Acquisition and Attorney Fee Recovery

Because this is a public use project, WSDOT will have eminent domain authority to acquire property if negotiations can not be reached.

When the government makes you an offer, it will tell you that it represents fair market value.  It may even show you an appraisal.  But be aware, appraisals can vary, and the government’s may be a low one.  If you reject the government’s offer, it still has to pay you that money, and this does not jeopardize your right to get more money in the eminent domain hearing.

Oftentimes, a property owner will only receive just compensation by allowing condemnation to occur. In condemnation, an owner can show that the rules for highest and best use will produce a higher price than the amount offered by the government.

If you pursue a claim for additional compensation, you should know that in Washington, attorney’s fees and costs may be paid for by the government if the judgment awarded at the trial exceeds the highest written offer by at least 10 percent (WA 8.25.070).

Links:

WSDOT North Spokane Corridor Website

Washington Eminent Domain