1 -- Right of Way
Land Acquisition
According to government land acquisition
expert Dennis Johnson, there Commission follows questionable practices when
acquiring land. As I have looked into it, Dennis has a
point.
Dennis is the Carson City Supervisor Candidate for
Ward 2 in the November 2008 Election.
See His
Thoughts
Blogpage
ARTICLE TOPICS:
Harry
Reid
Pork Barrels
Federal
Regulations
State Laws
Land
Acquisition
Confidentiality
Agreements
Pre-Appraisal
Negotiations
Free Rent Courtesy the CC
Taxpayers
Best Value for Seller
Land
Grabs Must Be Necessary
Tourist Busing is Not an
Option
Why Do They Want That Gold Hill
Land?
|
It appears that the Commission
goes about buying land backwards! If there's any truth to even one little claim
on this page, you have to ask yourself, "how does the Commission Attorney Mike
Rowe let these things happen?"
HOW IS THE COMMISSION DOING THINGS
BACKWARD?
It's simple. Assuming Federal Regulations control this project
because Federal money is involved (true), Code of Federal Regulations Title 49
Part 24 Section 102 is pretty clear that a government entity with the power of
eminent domain has certain responsibilities toward owners of land they want to
acquire for a government project.
If you actually want to read
Code of
Federal Regulations 49CFR24.102, see the HTML and
PDF
formats please be my guest. The upshot is that before a government body
using Federal funds begins negotations on land purchases, they must have an
appraisal in hand. The NCRVTR has done this backwards when buying the Drako Way
depot land. I am told they made an initial offer of $1.5 million, but had to
reduce this by $50,000 or so when the appraisal came in low.
OTHER
PRACTICES WORTH QUESTIONING ... QUIET, PLEASE!
The Commission has made
landowners sign confidentiality agreements as part of the deal. What interest
would the Commission have in keeping sellers from talking to other people,
particularly other sellers. Free country? Not when selling land to the
Commission.
FREE RENT, COURTESY THE CARSON CITY TAXPAYER
Back to
the land the Commission paid over $1.4 million for so they could build a depot
in far-east Carson City. They bought the land and then allowed the business
located there to stay in place and rent the land for $1 per year! I wish I
could rent a mobile home for $1 per month, but here's the Commission giving an
industrial property away for $1 per year!
Now in the private world
these kinds of lease-backs are allowable because the buyer/new owner is doing
it of their own free will. They are accepting the loss of competitive market
rate rent because they CHOOSE TO!
It's very much against state and
federal law for government to give away taxpayer dollars in the form of
virtually free rent, and that's why the Commission stopped this practice when
they were called on it. Oh, the taxpayers had to pay the "possessory interest
tax," which is a lower property tax rate government bodies pay on the land they
own.
BEST AND HIGHEST USE/VALUE, NOT BEST DEAL FOR THE
GOVERNMENT
When the government buys land, the person who is supposed to
get the good deal is the seller! When you in Carson City hear talk of, "we
really saved money there," they probably screwed the seller. That's not
consistent with Federal Regs.
LAND PURCHASES MUST BE A NECESSARY PART OF
THE PROJECT
Look at the Gold Hill land purchase currently being
considered by the Commission. Sure, it's only $60,000 or so, what's $60,000? A
lot of money to the average person, that's what. Again the Commission has
already signed an offer for the land for $80,000. Then at the September
Commission meeting, Attorney Mike Rowe said the appraisal isn't done but it
looks like the land is only worth $60-65,000. Oops, landowner, sorry for
getting your hopes up!
WHY DO THEY WANT THAT GOLD HILL
LAND?
Meanwhile, they say they need this land for "access" but there's
already a public road (Telegraph Road) that gets closer to the tracks than this
land will. I asked at the last meeting, "what kind of access, maintenance
equipment access or access to move railroad cars onto the tracks?" They did not
clarify what they meant.
You have to know the lay of the land between
Gold Hill and Virginia City for this next part to make sense:
My theory
is that the Commission wants to be able to isolate the Grays and stop the train
at Gold Hill. Can you imaging the marketing, "Ride the V&T but not to
Virginia City!" There has been talk in the past about passengers getting off
the train at Gold Hill and riding buses the rest of the way to Virginia City.
Now, as I wrap up this article, imagine a load of 300 people getting
off the train. You average huge bus cannot carry 300 people so you need
multiple buses. Oh, but wait, Greiner's Curve/Grade between Gold Hill and
Virginia City is not accessible by bus! So assuming the train stops at the Gold
Hill station, there are two solutions: a) have a fleet of fifteen 20-passenger
shuttles that can go up the hill or b) use three big buses and run them down to
the 342/341 split, the back up the 341 truck route to Virginia City! Does
either of those scenarios sound enjoyable, efficient or economical? Heck,
no!
There's a whole host of other issues related to land acquisitions,
but I think we've just about hit all the important ones.
Oh, yeah,
here's one: According to Dennis the Commission if just figuring out who owns
the right of way in some places! As Dennis says, "That should be enough to make
folks wonder!"
As noted above, please see Dennis' website at |