Long known as the most arrogant of our state agencies, NCDOT got spanked in court yesterday. I fully expect them to take the case to the State Supreme Court for a second time, just because the folks running the agency are assholes, and it's not about serving the public to them, but being a bully and beating up on taxpayers who pay their salaries.
Over 300 landowners basically got their land taken between 9 and 20 years ago when the state designated a new beltway around Winston-Salem and mapped it, but never gave them just compensation. In effect it prevents the owners from being any more than squatters on their own land.
http://www.journalnow.com/news/local...4b80e1c79.htmlBeltway landowners got a slam-dunk ruling in their favor from the N.C. Court of Appeals Tuesday morning, as the appeals court told the N.C. Department of Transportation to begin filing plats and making deposits on hundreds of properties in the path of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway.
Barring a state appeal to the N.C. Supreme Court, the opinion means that the Transportation Department has to begin appraising hundreds of properties in the path of the beltway and paying deposits — plus interest — from 1997 or 2008, whichever date applies to the time the property was designated as being in the beltway path under the Map Act.
Yours is a spurious argument. A wall to prevent trespassers is a benefit to the landowner. Here's the alternative: if a landowner doesn't want his land taken for construction of the wall then don't take it. Of course that area would then become a highway for illegals trespassing, stealing and shitting all over his property.
There are any number of land owners who do not want to sell their property for any number of good reasons. There are those who do not want to stare at a wall, those who will lose a portion of their property since it will be on the "wrong" side of the wall. there are the conservationists who feel the wall will hurt wildlife, and then we have those who wont sell because they hate trump. It could be well over a decade before all the land needed is obtained, and all of this assumes that Congress will pass funding.
MAGA MAN (11-22-2017)
One of your arguments is against eminent domain, which has long been upheld. The second, wildlife migration, has been dealt with in any limited access highway project; again decades of court rulings in favor of the right-of-way.
But all that becomes moot when you consider the alternative. Again, my opinion is if the landowners don't want to sell, then don't sell, and face the consequences of foreign invaders trespassing and shitting all over their land.
Hmm. It seems unlikely that a wall being built to keep out "trespassers" on a national level would have a handy hole in it because a landowner refused to cooperate. Eminent domain is legal. But is it always ethical to use? I don't see the difference between your scenario of the NC landowners who were not correctly compensated, and the TX landowners who will be losing part of their property. Both reasons (road, and wall) are for "the public good."
MAGA MAN (11-22-2017)
MAGA MAN (11-22-2017)
Bookmarks