Regional Boards > Central States
South Dakota
X99:
--- Quote from: SD Mapman on April 23, 2023, 12:16:58 PM ---On Gisi Road, they have to preserve existing access, even if it was an unnamed driveway.
--- End quote ---
I'm not suggesting removing access to Gisi Road, obviously it's still needed. I'm just suggesting putting it here instead:
This would keep the new access road from cutting through the middle of the property, and that other stub going off to the left is already linked to Bennett Road on the other end so that connection is redundant.
--- Quote from: SD Mapman on April 23, 2023, 12:16:58 PM ---My issue here is why are they naming the road west of I-90 Highway 1416 when US 14 and US 16 never went that way?
--- End quote ---
Given what I've seen in some of the proposed interchange layouts, I think the plan is to somehow link the western roadway directly to Mall Drive, which would hopefully rename it to that starting at the interchange. (If it were up to me, I would run it north of Mall and Seger and call it SD 200, but it isn't up to me, so I'm hoping my other guess is right.) Mall currently ends at a T junction with Seger, with an unbuilt continuation at the top of the T, so it already removes Seger as an obstacle to link to 1416 if that really is the official plan.
SD Mapman:
--- Quote from: X99 on April 24, 2023, 11:25:08 AM ---
--- Quote from: SD Mapman on April 23, 2023, 12:16:58 PM ---On Gisi Road, they have to preserve existing access, even if it was an unnamed driveway.
--- End quote ---
I'm not suggesting removing access to Gisi Road, obviously it's still needed. I'm just suggesting putting it here instead:
This would keep the new access road from cutting through the middle of the property, and that other stub going off to the left is already linked to Bennett Road on the other end so that connection is redundant.
--- Quote from: SD Mapman on April 23, 2023, 12:16:58 PM ---My issue here is why are they naming the road west of I-90 Highway 1416 when US 14 and US 16 never went that way?
--- End quote ---
Given what I've seen in some of the proposed interchange layouts, I think the plan is to somehow link the western roadway directly to Mall Drive, which would hopefully rename it to that starting at the interchange. (If it were up to me, I would run it north of Mall and Seger and call it SD 200, but it isn't up to me, so I'm hoping my other guess is right.) Mall currently ends at a T junction with Seger, with an unbuilt continuation at the top of the T, so it already removes Seger as an obstacle to link to 1416 if that really is the official plan.
--- End quote ---
That would make sense, and then once the project is finished they'll get rid of the N I-90 Service Road since it will be no longer necessary.
skluth:
Interesting eminent domain suit result. Taking land for highway improvements in the middle of nowhere just got more expensive.
--- Quote ---Brookings, state lose $850,000-plus Interstate 29 Exit 130 interchange lawsuit
BROOKINGS – The new Brookings exit on Interstate 29 got considerably more expensive last week.
A Brookings County jury awarded a property owner whose land was taken by the city and state through eminent domain $850,000 on June 1 – nearly 23 times the original payment from the city and state.
The state of South Dakota and city of Brookings acquired the land from Renae Rohl, owner of RCS Development Inc., in 2021 through a quick take at the price of $6,000 per acre, or $37,674 in total.
At the conclusion of a two-day trial last week, a county jury ordered them to pay her $850,000 plus expert fees and trial costs. That figure represents a valuation of $138,888 per acre.
Attorney Tim Hogan of Ribstein and Hogan represented Rohl at trial, along with Clint Sargent of Meirhenry Sargent LLP of Sioux Falls.
Hogan said his client and her late husband owned 20 acres west of I-29 and south of 20th Street in the area along with the Western Estates mobile home park for years. The couple sold Western Estates in 2016 but held the parcel as an investment.
“Renae is very happy with the outcome, and I think happy to get it over with,” Hogan said. “And I was impressed with her at trial. When asked how much she thought she should get, she just said she should get a fair price for her property.”
State statute requires property seized via eminent domain be purchased for fair market value. And because the jury decided the land was worth more than 20 percent more than the state and city offered, Rohl is entitled to collect all her costs from the litigation, including attorney’s fees.
The city is entitled to appeal the verdict.
When reached for comment, city officials confirmed the verdict for 6.12 acres of land.
The city also confirmed it does not have lawsuit insurance on the project and the costs will be included in the overall project costs of the interchange.
City Manager Paul Briseno offered: “The City has no further comment.”
Hogan said a decision to appeal would be up to the city, but added “Based on what was presented to the court, I didn’t see any grounds for appeal.”
Site preparation for the new Exit 130 interchange beganlast year and the exit is scheduled to be open next month.
Eminent domain has become a hot-button political issue in the Upper Midwest as scads of litigation has been filed over two proposed carbon dioxide pipelines through the area. Both the South Dakota and North Dakota state legislatures hotly debated bills that would have made using eminent domain for the pipelines all but impossible last session.
--- End quote ---
Original article in Brookings Register
SD Mapman:
All that because the state paid $6000 an acre instead of $7200 per acre for a... useless gravel pit. Methinks the Brookings County jury is overvaluing nothing to drive up their own property values. You have a mix of left-leaning university types (who hate the state) and landowners who have to deal with the carbon pipeline eminent domain (who hate the state) and naturally DOT had no chance of winning this.
Eminent domain out here is a serious business, I've heard of surveyors from the firm I work at being threatened with being shot for trying to survey sewer locations.
skluth:
--- Quote from: SD Mapman on June 29, 2023, 10:38:34 PM ---All that because the state paid $6000 an acre instead of $7200 per acre for a... useless gravel pit. Methinks the Brookings County jury is overvaluing nothing to drive up their own property values. You have a mix of left-leaning university types (who hate the state) and landowners who have to deal with the carbon pipeline eminent domain (who hate the state) and naturally DOT had no chance of winning this.
Eminent domain out here is a serious business, I've heard of surveyors from the firm I work at being threatened with being shot for trying to survey sewer locations.
--- End quote ---
The jury may have overvalued the property. But it wouldn't have been a problem had the owners been given fair value for it. $6000/acre for a large, interstate-adjacent parcel is a low-ball offer even in South Dakota. There's a lot of anger as it is over eminent domain (and that anger is held by right-leaning, libertarian-types that hate the state far more than anyone on the left; the left's anger at eminent domain is usually over things like poor-people's homes being declared "blighted" and then destroyed for highway expansion). Most juries everywhere are going to be sympathetic to small landowners over the state most days.
FWIW, gravel pits are far from useless. We're actually running out of quality sand and gravel that can be used for construction. You can't use wind-blown sand like I have all around me in the desert. Construction needs washed sand like that found in Midwestern glacial deposits (moraines, drumlins, eskers, etc). You can also get the right sand out of riverbeds but most people don't appreciate their prime trout streams and other riverbanks being mined and those riverbeds are also usually subject to flooding, not ideal for extraction.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version