Submitted by Maxwyfe t3_10vbblb in springfieldMO
Comments
aujii11 t1_j7grb2q wrote
The Renew Jordan Creek plans look pretty cool. If they pull it off how they say they will, it'll make downtown Springfield look amazing.
VaderTower t1_j7hqqj0 wrote
I'm confident they will, just expect it to take longer. Same thing happened with Jordan Valley, this is more or less a continuation of that.
It'll happen, it'll be great, but it'll take 20 years.
jttIII t1_j7grppk wrote
Eminent Domain is trash...
Jimithyashford t1_j7gw6w5 wrote
All public interest should grind to a halt if a stubborn owner refuses to sell?
Wyldfire2112 t1_j7gxi4j wrote
Problem is, it gets abused horribly, just like Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Jimithyashford t1_j7gzaon wrote
So is the sentiment here "it sucks but it's necessary" or "it sucks and should not exist"?
Cause I might be willing to agree with the former, but not the latter.
There are a hell of a lot of things that are terrible but it's good it can be done when needed.
Wyldfire2112 t1_j7h0ewj wrote
Eminent Domain definitely has a hell of a lot more reason to exist than Civil Asset Forfeiture, for sure.
My main complaints, personally, are stem from using Eminent Domain to screw the people being bought-out out of the value of their property. Stuff like paying the value of the undeveloped land, not the actual sale price of the property if they listed it.
toxcrusadr t1_j7h8ycz wrote
As I understand it, the Eminent Domain process has to involve a neutral third party who assesses the fair market value of the property.
I assume you're referring to a case where there were buildings (etc.) and the owner did not receive the value of them? That does seem unfair on the face of it.
Wyldfire2112 t1_j7h9iyv wrote
Exactly. Paying someone out for a home on an acre of land as if it were an acre of empty fields, rather than what a realtor could get for the property, is a scam I've seen several times. That "neutral" third party is often anything but.
toxcrusadr t1_j7lhf4d wrote
Sheesh.
Jimithyashford t1_j7gzj5k wrote
Also I agree whole heartedly about asset forfeiture. I very rarely hear of cases of imminent domain where it seems clear to me there wasn't' a genuine public interest and I am left feeling like the process was abused. Not never mind you, just not often that I can think of.
jttIII t1_j7hi62k wrote
Mostly yes... To think think that you could work your ass off to buy and build a life or a home or a business and pay taxes all along the way then 30 years later a committee decides to forcibly take it from under the guise of paying you "fair market rates" for their "greater good" is f*cking trash.
That's like buying a stock you want to hold forever because you believe it will continue to appreciate and pay dividends and when there's no outstanding shares left then someone comes along and says "nah" we're forcing you to sell your stock to this us at the current rate whether you like it or not cause we really want the future gains.
No.
VaderTower t1_j7hrekn wrote
Not a perfect analogy. Sometimes eminent domain is necessary. Such as ... say a highway or an interstate.
Today it only takes 4 hours to get down to little rock, or 1 hour to get down to Branson. I'm old enough that I remember a time that wasn't the case. I've to old timers and it was a several hours journey to get to Branson or table rock lake, and Little Rock took 8+ hours.
If you didn't have eminent domain, one landowner could completely stall a highway.
In this articles case, they want to improve the bridge and make the area more usable. They can't because of this building.
jttIII t1_j7i6yn4 wrote
You're correct that it puts the leverage in the hands of the original Landowner and that's the point... that's how I think it should be. And in the long term it would, I believe, sort itself out without heavy handed government strong arming.
It's likely obvious to me, you and everyone with a mind that there are profound community benefits to being able to make that commute... and because of that the original owner should be able to hold out for the highest value possible until another alternative becomes more economically viable.
The idea that at any given time your families 3rd generation farm could be split up for a highway and you get paid out by a less than honest brokers appraisal with little to no recourse is asinine to me and akin to a serfdom dystopia.
The only middle ground I could maybe concede on this on a principled level is if somehow your private property was like a national security blindspot... IE your farm in Maine on the border is a strategically important foothold for a bloodthirsty Canadian invasion.
Outside of that wildly extreme scenario I am of the philosophy I owe you and you owe me literally nothing nor either of us have a right to acquire each others respective properties without consent.
toxcrusadr t1_j7h9sd4 wrote
This is a classic case of a public infrastructure improvement that can't be done otherwise.
Now, if the city acquired a bunch of land by ED then leased it to someone else to build a casino, THAT would be trashy. But we'd never do that in MO. <coughcoughboonvillecough>
erichkutslilpp t1_j7hbaw2 wrote
People down-voting this would be saying the same thing if it was their property being seized.
jttIII t1_j7hj7yj wrote
Absolutely... but the people who are for it tend to be collectivists and don't hold individual rights on the same pedestal as the "collective need" of the day, until it steps on their yard.
Many of these same types of people were up in arms about the VOTE that happened on Galloway being rezoned for instance but are somehow okay with the government saying "Bend over, this is gonna happen" when it's a gross haunted house that isn't their backyard.
erichkutslilpp t1_j7ibsxp wrote
I can get on board with a very select few instances of eminent domain. This one seems sus considering they don't seem to be considering the business in their offers. I don't see that business doing well in very many places. Also it seems hard to believe that little bridge cannot be repaired/replaced without requiring removal of the building.
Mechanicallvlan t1_j7hj3d9 wrote
Coming in October, Closed Down Sears of Terror!
Numerous-Mix-9775 t1_j7itrxj wrote
I went right before it closed and it already had a “the apocalypse has already happened” vibe, so it could honestly be a great location…
Moriartea7 t1_j86y8xw wrote
Stick Spirit Halloween in there and its a 2 for 1 deal!
Cold417 t1_j7gtcqk wrote
Pay that man his money... /Malkovich
whattheduce86 t1_j7hyq1l wrote
They have all that money to buy the baseball stadium but can’t come up with enough to pay the man?
chimesplayer t1_j7hvtk3 wrote
Hotel of Terror and Dungeons of Doom have been staples for so many years. If they tear it down, I hope they find a new home. Personally, I would love a fresh new haunted house.
You_Ate_The_Bones t1_j7jlf8v wrote
This is rhetoric. The hotel of terror doesn’t fit in the City’s vision for daylighting/naturalizing the creek. Bear in mind, this project should actually be called “man-made creek” because that’s all it is going to create; ever since the creek was channelized and tunneled, the water table dropped beneath the surface and the creek only appears during storm water floods. But sure, spend millions for making a man made creek.
The City is going to spend +$40 million on this project. Anybody with neighboring property is going to see their property double in value. The project will revolutionize the image of downtown. Hotel of Terror does not fit into that image. The options for municipalities to get rid of unfavorable land uses: pay market value…or claim some street/city improvement and condemn. The latter is the cheaper.
I hope we get 1 more Halloween season with hotel of terror. I’ve never been, but it’s a Springfield staple.
mb10240 t1_j7hunmv wrote
When they say the Main Street Bridge, what are they talking about? I don’t see a bridge anywhere near the Hotel of Terror.
throwawayspfd t1_j7i13e6 wrote
There is a small bridge that goes over Jordan Creek just south of the Hotel.
Cold417 t1_j7i0q0w wrote
Load Google Streetview for the Hotel of Terror. You see that fencing next to the south side of the building.
mb10240 t1_j7i4t12 wrote
THAT?! Jeez. I’m no civil engineer but it seems like there might be a better alternative to condemning a building to fix that bridge.
mrd247 t1_j7hfzdf wrote
Its because its a eyesore and its close to the new greenway project.
Maxwyfe OP t1_j7hievs wrote
It’s a Hotel. Of Terror. What should it look like?
PappaJohnathans t1_j7mqc12 wrote
The plan moving forward is to open the tunnel from hotel of terror east all the way to water street.
PappaJohnathans t1_j7mqdcb wrote
The plan moving forward is to open the tunnel from hotel of terror east all the way to water street.
[deleted] t1_j7h6hpz wrote
[deleted]
toxcrusadr t1_j7h9iqu wrote
The bridge needs to be longer to make the creek channel wider for flood control, and wider as well (if I understand the plans correctly). The HoT is right up to the sidewalk and any widening would necessarily run into it. Not only that, but the wider channel would also go...right through the building. Flooding has been a problem down there for decades and this is the way to alleviate it. There are other properties that can't be used/redeveloped because of flooding.
[deleted] t1_j7har5d wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j7h82x3 wrote
[deleted]
Cthepo t1_j7gibmn wrote
A little bit of real danger from dilapidation just adds to the experience though.
Edit:
>Now city council will decide if the city can begin the eminent domain process to acquire the building to fix the main street bridge and move forward with the Renew Jordan Creek Project.
>The Main Street Bridge is deteriorating. Large buses, emergency vehicles, and trucks can’t drive over it. City leaders say the bridge can’t be repaired until the building is removed.
Ah, it's more than just the building itself.