34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - (508) 222-7000
News
Land-taking possible in city
Top Headlines ARA Executive Director Michael Milanoski said the ARA board will likely be asked to take the property of both owners "at the next meeting or so." About three acres is owned by Reynolds and Markman, an industrial supply company that operates from the site. Another acre is the former site of Johnson Fabrication and is owned by Orville Richardson. The property is off Olive Street near the railroad tracks. The companies and the ARA have been negotiating on and off for more than two years, but have not been able to agree on a price. That will force the ARA to take the property by eminent domain and pay what real estate appraisers have determined is fair market value. Price also is dictated by regulations of the Federal Transit Administration, which is funding many of the downtown improvements that include a new MBTA parking garage, a GATRA bus station, new roads, condominiums and retail space, officials said. About $10 million has been committed to the project by the federal and state governments to date. The sides have been at loggerheads since early last year, with Reynolds and Markman officials saying the company can't relocate and thrive on the money offered by the ARA. The owner of the Johnson property had intended to develop a self-storage facility on the site, and claims the dispute has cost him time and money. In March of last year, city councilors said they would vote for the Urban Renewal Plan that governs the multi-phase, multi-year and multi-million dollar downtown project only if a settlement with the two companies was deemed by them to be fair. The urban renewal plan was approved last year. Meanwhile, another company, Mantrose-Haeuser, has offered to donate a small piece of its property that's needed for the project. Milanoski said the ARA will save about $100,000 because of the donation.
Post Your Comments attlebrockton wrote on Aug 25, 2008 11:08 AM: " I suppose Rim & Kim i'll never knowv who are you tongiht ..lol without a blog name tags " ricknkim wrote on Aug 25, 2008 9:51 AM: " I'm planning on attending " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 25, 2008 9:18 AM: " anyone going tonight? glad it appeared in the paper :( Maybe the Sun Chronicle has an interest in the projects moving forward. " kim allard wrote on Aug 21, 2008 10:38 PM: " CITY COUNCIL IS HOLDING A SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY NIGHT AT 7 PM WITH THE ARA...YOU SHOULD ALL ATTEND. " ricknkim wrote on Aug 21, 2008 4:58 PM: " So they (city) gave them (ARA) power but they (mayor & council) have little power over the ARA? Hmm, nice arrangement Mr. M has there - thanks, may I have another sir! " ricknkim wrote on Aug 21, 2008 4:36 PM: " Now you're thinking Skeptic! LOL! But that hilly/un-even ledge-infested area will be tough to navigate when sporting an espresso buzz. Might result in more litigation? " skeptic wrote on Aug 21, 2008 4:29 PM: " Maybe it would be easier and cheaper to let the productive businesses stay put and to develop the industrial / business park as the botique and latte center? No emininet domain issues that haven't been settled. " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 21, 2008 4:27 PM: " The city gave them eminent domain power when they ok'd the URP last year. " ricknkim wrote on Aug 21, 2008 4:10 PM: " By the way, if neither the mayor nor the city council have authority over the ARA, how can the ARA have the authority to enact eminent domain in this case? I'm a bit confused here. " ricknkim wrote on Aug 21, 2008 3:55 PM: " Attleborobrockton - I was just talking in general terms of various properties/homes throughout the city, not the 2 businesses/pptys in question in the article. Just thinking out loud about the question of eminent domain in general. I hope Mr. Bowles continues to question the ARA - I believe he bills himself as an overall fiscal conservative with liberal exceptions? " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 21, 2008 3:49 PM: " Is it me or is that pic of Bill bowles a bad one? I think he is a friend to the taxpayer he was he only one with serious questions for the ARA back when nobody was paying attention. " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 21, 2008 3:43 PM: " i'm not sure rick n kim who's property you are talking about? the old barn is a working biz ,Automatic is a machine shop so dirty yesw but not shameful ,the other two off olive seem to be open places of biz, After all the city has no right to take whatsw not theirs for a condo project ,look at the corliss property on west st? why not take that and make it affordable housing . " ricknkim wrote on Aug 21, 2008 3:37 PM: " I understand they will likely move in some manner on the last 2 properties, I was just hoping it would be a mutually beneficial agreement for both sides versus a land grab by the ARA. Such a move would not sit well with me as I have a disdain for local/state/federal goverment overstepping their presumed authority. It is easy to look at some of the awful looking properties throughout Attleboro and wish they'd go away but to actually see a government act as prosecutor, judge and jury - it is a bit concerning. Just because I think some residents should be ashamed as to their properties current sad state doesn't make my opinion worthy - live and let live no? But then something like that happens next door and I'm up in arms as to the negative affect it has on my property value and the view from my front window . . . . slippery slope. " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 21, 2008 2:53 PM: " rick & kim history dictates that the ARA takes without fore thought ..See the IBP. The downtown is no different. They will move on these two last holdouts. " ricknkim wrote on Aug 21, 2008 2:38 PM: " Agreed Realist, there is a scary part of the eminent domain thing and big governments quest to control the public interest. Of course I'm torn though, with a desire to improve the downtown and citizen rights. I hope that the issue can be resolved without eminent domain. I recall that eminent domain case in New London CT recently - I think I saw an investigative report about it on PBS? " realist wrote on Aug 21, 2008 12:35 PM: " ricknkim is correct, the Mass Pike was built on land taken by eminent domain as were the Quabbin Reservoir and a host of schools and other public projects. The difference is that the Pike and other public projects were built for the benefit of all and remained under control of the government (for better or worse). However this is a perversion of the intent. The land is being taken with the express intent of turning it over to private developers for their profit. There are cases of nice ocean front cottages being taken so a developer can put up a hotel. A woodshop being taken so Home Depot could be built. The government at any level should not look at a piece of land and decide the use of it does not fit their vision of what should be there. Some politicians will try to say that it does benefit the public because more taxes will be generated. Well, have you ever known a new source of tax revenue to lower other peoples' taxes. If you have the time I would like to point out a few links about the abuse of eminent domain: http://www.ij.org/Private_property/connecticut/ http://www.sandiegomagazine.com/media/San-Diego-Magazine/January-2006/Masters-of-your-Domain/ http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4420 and the occasional happy ending: http://ij.org/private_property/longbranch/8_7_08pr.html " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 21, 2008 11:18 AM: " good point Rick kim ,Maybe the Mass pike will be paid for someday :)As for the landowners the writer probably should have contacted them . The story reads like a plant from the ARA. " ricknkim wrote on Aug 21, 2008 10:40 AM: " There's always 2 sides to every story - I'd be interested in hearing the 2 remaining landowner's . . . there is always a chance they are holding out for greed purposes and awaiting a bigger payday, but they also may simply want to stay put and don't like to be told their land has been taken, I wouldn't. Tough call. Of course, the MassPike would never have been built without eminent domain land taking . . . . " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 21, 2008 10:30 AM: " I suppose the only way it isn't negative is if they go to Taunton like Automatic for 2.4 mil plus 1.2 mil moving expenses. " ricknkim wrote on Aug 21, 2008 9:49 AM: " I don't like the idea of any government agency being able to easily take personal property if the owners simply wish to stay put and if a relocation would result in a negative impact upon them. As for boutique shopping and latte sipping, if it improves Attleboro as a whole, so be it. I won't visit them, but am sure my wife will. I'd be more interested if a decent restaurant finally moved in to town. . . . " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 21, 2008 9:49 AM: " Glad to see our communist friend again. Hola Jose ,Actually we didn't take the land it was the American Indians "liberal" immigration policy :) Unfortunately for them they had no legal recourse. " jose21 wrote on Aug 21, 2008 9:40 AM: " Realist, unAmerican? Isn't that how we started this country? " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 21, 2008 8:37 AM: " Realist I agree ,the ARA seems not to give a hoot about legal problems,bills ,etc Maybe because they can the Mayor will bail them out. There is also no comment from the two business's but a comment from the director why is that ? " realist wrote on Aug 21, 2008 8:15 AM: " There seems to be something un-American about the government taking property with no clear and immediate public need. To close down a business and tell it to move so the mayor can further his strange view of Attleboro as some sort of botique shopping, latte sipping Utopia should be illegal. " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 21, 2008 8:10 AM: " It seems to me the ARA is desperate for property they can market to a developer. Problem is they have no money to pay these ppl it seems. I also had forgotten the council ok the downtoen project based on assurances the ARA would take care of the two business mentioned today . I guess they again were full of it. " Harry Hindsight wrote on Aug 21, 2008 7:46 AM: " Taking property by eminent domain is the smash and grab of public office. Offer them a parcell in the IBP at a reduced price. Either that or make them the same offer as the company going to Tauton. " Atticus wrote on Aug 21, 2008 6:37 AM: " Here is an idea! Under the Intermodal Transportation Act, federal (taxpayer's)money is available for the construction and maintenance of bike paths on public roads. Why don't we paint a lot of stripes on our streets, grab a lot of that STP money and use it to fund the ARA? I am sure that would be hailed as "creative". Why do you think Cambridge streets are riddled with bike paths? " attlebrockton wrote on Aug 21, 2008 6:07 AM: " wow it appears they can't help themselves the ARA that is. I guess they will take it and spur another series of lawsuits . Excellent planning. " or
|
