KELOland.com has a story on the recent purchase of two homes in Brookings by the city:
City officials have approved the purchase of two homes in an area where it may be necessary to build an overpass if the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad begins running coal trains from Wyoming.
One home will be bought for $149,900 and the other for $172,500.
City Manager Jeffrey Weldon says the two homes could be leveled at some point if the land is needed for an overpass.
Read it all here. The city is purchasing these homes, but will rent them out until such time that they may be needed for demolition for an overpass related to a possible DM&E Expansion.
Curiously enough, one of the homes (the one for $172,500) belonged to the widow of Dwight Adams, a long-time and vocal opponent of the DM&E expansion.
This purchase by the city is a novel approach which would have normally been handled through eminent domain procedures. Now, each party gets a big fat check, and gets to walk away from land that’s somewhat stigmatized for being on the tracks because of the expansion which “someday may happen.”
Of course, there’s the other side of the coin in this transaction.
I can’t speak for the other side involved in the transaction, but I wonder if the Adams’ home purchase price wasn’t… a bit over the top. Compare it to other homes selling for that price in this area, and you’re left scratching your head. Anyone who’s ever seen the 50’s style home of Dwight, an old boss from one of my stints with the state GOP, might not necessarily agree that it was worth that hefty sum. But the city paid it.
Is it more responsible to the taxpayer to pay more to avoid an eminent domain scuffle, or it it more responsible to treat everyone fairly through the traditional mechanism of eminent domain? I’m sure there are other homeowners along the tracks who’d like to get $172,500 to walk away from their homes.
Eminent domain being responsible to the taxpayers, or a larger fee being responsive to the homeowners?
What’s the better side of the coin?
