Airport Access Road Eminent Domain Facts?

[Russell Kanning]

Brian has provided us with a wonderful example of democracy operating as mob rule. Apparently in his viewpoint if the majority of landowners wish to sell then the opinion of the minority is completely irrelevant.

That is so true. It seems that civil officials will gladly take the land of a few and give it to the rest by various means.

[hankster]

isn't the salient question in the case whether the common good is enhanced by the access road?

it is the reason given for allowing an individual the privilege of enclosing the commons - because it enhances the common good.

[GT]

isn't the salient question in the case whether the common good is enhanced by the access road?

it is the reason given for allowing an individual the privilege of enclosing the commons - because it enhances the common good.

The land that is being taken has NOTHING to do with the access road.

The taking is for wetland mitigation. In other words the state is going to destroy a wetland creating the new road. To get away with "destroying one they have to ppreotect another.

Some of the property being taken is 5 miles from the road site!!!

APB can correct me if I'm wrong.

[hankster]

isn't the salient question in the case whether the common good is enhanced by the access road?

it is the reason given for allowing an individual the privilege of enclosing the commons - because it enhances the common good.

The land that is being taken has NOTHING to do with the access road.

The taking is for wetland mitigation. In other words the state is going to destroy a wetland creating the new road. To get away with "destroying one they have to ppreotect another.

Some of the property being taken is 5 miles from the road site!!!

APB can correct me if I'm wrong.

of course it has to do with the access road.

if the access road were not necessary then we wouldn't be having this discussion...

all surface bodies of water over 20 acres and all groundwater is owned in common in NH

wetlands are connected directly to the aquifer so the state as the public trustee has an interest in protecting a common asset.

[Lloyd Danforth]

if the access road were not necessary then we wouldn't be having this discussion...

You're kidding, right?

[hankster]

if the access road were not necessary then we wouldn't be having this discussion...

You're kidding, right?

no

[Kat Kanning]

Stinkin socialist pig.

[Lloyd Danforth]

And, naive

[APB]

I only got to the "Telling you what I think....would be very difficult" part. I can't really listen to polititians. Thanks for all you are doing GT.

Sent to me:

Glenn,
I hope you don?t mind that I added Russell to the distribution, some of what I am providing here answers some questions he had in an earlier email. I must admit that I find it a bit strange that you would be asking me for input to an article.  We all have biases and I believe that any article that you write would have a bias firmly against eminent domain.  That?s understandable to me as when I have a particular bias I generally write my own articles as well.  It is an effective way to communicate in writing without the worry of being misquoted, as happens with reporters from time to time.  You could choose to misquote me in the article you are writing. Is that your intention? Too often interested/vested parties rely on the use of hearsay statements as fact. If you are relying on hearsay and press reports about this issue then you may already be off track.  Have you researched this to the point that you are using confirmed sources of information such as the public record available at the State, in Londonderry, the Airport, City of Manchester, etc?  All of that is a tedious task but it can be done, not doing the research means that someone can easily pick apart your article.
Telling you what I think in this specific case would be very difficult to do for a variety of reasons.  There are a variety of complex influences on this issue and it?s also a matter of perspective.  My perspective is based on a variety of observations including my personal beliefs about the subject of eminent domain, personal opinions about some of the players involved, concern for the potential long term ecological impact if the Little Cohas Marsh were to be drained, and my ?professional? role in all of this as a member of the Council.  For some it?s always black and white, for me it almost never is.
On the subject of eminent domain, the founding fathers chose to allow it.  It is allowable under the law and the recent Supreme Court case affirmed that.  That ends the debate in one sense.  It doesn?t mean that we have to agree with the courts decision.  There does need to be a modern day look at the issue and many states are doing exactly that.   When you say ?hundreds of acres? and ?approximately 70 property owners? do you have a specific reference that indicates the exact acreage and who all of the affected property owners are?  The various press reports all quote the acreage differently.  I have seen it reported at anywhere from 600 to 750 acres.   Of the ?approximately 70 property owners? several have already willingly sold parcels of land to the State.  While I don?t have the exact number, NHDOT might.  So while some like Al Baldasaro object to it, many others don?t.  What?s the ratio of affected property owners who object to those who have already willingly sold their property? That should be the real focus of any discussion going forward.   As representatives of the Town of Londonderry, the Council had no legitimate role to play in this case.  The Town legally had and has no standing.  As a result the States rights and legal standing in this case trump the Towns interest.  Some would like to portray this differently; some feel that we should have done something and that our actions would have prevented this from happening.  I am sure some may think that either one or all of the Council should have raised the figurative drawbridge and defended the property rights of a few of our citizens against the State.  Public comments made at the Town Council meetings where this was discussed indicated that more affected property owners favored the sale than objected to it.  As to your question about whether the Town Council supported the affected landowners, which group should we have supported?  As elected representatives our actions are governed by State Law and Town Charter.  Under those guidelines none of us acting as individuals have any standing.  Anything that any of us might have done as an individual would have been just that, an individual act and not an official act.   Several months ago the Council voted to sell approximately 90 acres of marsh land the Town owned in the Little Cohas to the State for this project.  You could take the view that this sale was simply the Town playing ball with the State.  From my own perspective as one Councilor the impact mitigation was a requirement that had to be met and the Town?s selling a parcel of unusable marsh land reduced the amount of acreage that would need to be acquired or taken from private landowners.  One point made by myself and others on the Council was that all property owners should be dealt with fairly and that the State pays fair market value.   That fair market price has been the subject of much debate. Some believe their land might eventually dry out enough to become buildable if the State drained the Cohas. Others believe that draining the Cohas will not make the land in question usable, beaver activity in the area will simply re-flood the marsh.  I don?t have any expertise in the environmental science needed to determine the facts so I have to rely on the expertise of others.
The ?experts? all seem to be saying that the land will remain unusable and that draining the marsh will have significant negative impact on our environment and water resources as the marsh acts as a filter for the water table in the surrounding area. While not an expert on assessing practices I do have some insight into land value as a member of the Council and the Planning Board.  One thing that I do know is that the market and assessed land value of any property owner is affected by the amount of wetland area.  The reality is that the wetlands aren?t worth much market wise and as such they do not artificially inflate the value of the total acreage of any parcel.  Since Al is the man out in front in this case I will use his property as an example.  Wetlands were a factor in determining the price he originally paid for his property, essentially lowering it.  The property taxes he pays today are based on that lower value.  If the fact that nearly 5 acres of his land was wet was not a factor then Al would have paid more to buy it and would now be paying property taxes on land that would be valued at a much greater amount.  One acre of property recently sold in Town for $170K.  If Al?s wetland property were valued in a similar way, his 5 acres under threat of being taken under eminent domain property would be valued at around $850K.  Adding that to his remaining property at the site and Al would be getting hit with a property tax bill based on a market value of over $1M.
Switching gears a bit it strikes me as a bit ironic that your ?activist? base is now mobilized to fight an issue largely influenced by another group of activists.  From everything I understand about this particular project and others like it, the size of the mitigation package was heavily driven by outside interests.  In this case the Conservation Law Foundation played a major role early on in determining the specific routing that the ?Airport Access Road? might take and what the mitigation package would have to look like.
Their activism was in support of minimizing the environmental impacts this road might have.
Their activism was biased by a special concern regarding the impact to Bald Eagle nesting sites along the Merrimack River.  The formulas used to determine how much land would have to be acquired or taken were heavily influenced by these conservation activists with the cooperation of other interested parties like USEPA and not the NHDOT.  I am of the belief that the State of New Hampshire does not really have much to say on the size of the mitigation package. To be fair feel free to answer some of the following questions: Where do you stand on the issue of protecting natural resources like Open Space?  Assuming for a moment that you are in favor of Londonderry?s Open Space program, how would you have felt as a Londonderry taxpayer if the Town had entertained Al?s offer to sell his wetlands and used Open Space funds to do so?  What price would have been fair in your view, market value as demonstrated above or value based on a price per acre of buildable land?  What made you choose to live in Londonderry? Would you prefer to live in a Londonderry where we hadn?t preserved any of the several hundred acres that we have? Should we be working to protect natural resources like the Cohas?  Are you in favor of such efforts but merely biased against governmental protection of these resources?
Regards,  Brian
P.S. Isn?t it ironic that I am viewed as a lurker by reading the NH Underground forum without posting and you come and sit in all those meeting never saying a word making you a somewhat a lurker as well.

1st of all, the only land that was given up, was 2 church's and the town who voluntarily gave up the tax payers land, because they have a interest in the access road. They are very interested in the access road being built, so that they can hopefully get some interest in the potential industrial park by the airport. Many other land owners have not been approached yet for offers and some have not been appraised.

2nd, Brian Farmer once again is passing bogus information concerning open space monies. I told the council that my land was not for sale. I also told them that if you wanted to save the cohass dam, than maybe you should use your open space money. At no time did I ever say that you can buy my land with open space money. Keep in mind that some people have selective hearing. The only people that spoke to continue to flood our land was the town council, Chet Ham and Ken Smith who don't even own any of the land. His fathet was the police Chief at the time who signed the lease. Many of the land owners want more money for thier land because they have been involved in forced flooding and feel that if they are going to lose thier property, than they should get paid right. Oh; by the way, drive around the cohass and you will see that over the past 50 years, Londonderry and the state have been running thier drain pipes into private properties without the authorization of the land owner. The less than 1 foot of water on my land is from the drainage of all thier pipes. So yes, when Brian states that it acts as a filter before the water is dropped down 6-8 feet (dam) into a lake. The water in my back yard is all the road waste, drainning down from the rain and snow. I know almost every property owner and they are not willing to sell thier property. The ones that did are the ones that do not want to spend money on Lawyer's and feel that they do not have a chance to win. I will prove them wrong. Even the church's that negotiated with DOT for more monies, settled. They were able to negotiate with out going to the land and tax appeals board. I could of went there for more money, but like I said, my land is not for sale.

3rd, Brian ask the question and I quote: "To be fair feel free to answer some of the following questions: Where do you stand on the issue of protecting natural resources like Open Space?: I will be fair and answer the question! The land is not natural resources. It is being flooded by the rain water and drainage from all around the North Londonderry area. The water is being kept in by a Dam. My land is not a natural marsh land. I have a small creek way on the back side of my property and that is it.

Brian stated that "Some believe their land might eventually dry out enough to become buildable if the State drained the Cohas. Others believe that draining the Cohas will not make the land in question usable, beaver activity in the area will simply re-flood the marsh.  I don?t have any expertise in the environmental science needed to determine the facts so I have to rely on the expertise of others." Brian tell that the the people in Cambridge Ma, where the Galleria Mall, Court houses and many bussiness's & homes are built, which was marsh land years ago. Hello, I am not an expert either, but you do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure this one out. Oh, where are all the environmentalist about the raising of the Cohass, which causes the junk yard to flood and drain back into the cohass. HMMM, NATURAL ENVIRONMENT DISASTER!


4th, If anyone wants information on how many acres, how many land owners, call me and I will give you my lawyers name and phone number. You will get the correct answer and not the Brian Farmer political correct answer. Hold it, wait a minute, does it make a difference how many acres they are stealing? The bottom line, is that we own the land and there is nothing being built on it for economical reasons. Lst time I and my lawyer check, the towns are losing tax dollars on the land. The state don't pay tax's! If he can show me where I stated in the minutes of the town council meeting once and for all, that I said they should buy my land with open space money, I will appologize to him in front of God and the town. I know he can't, because his comments, are a bunch of bull. Maybe I should replay my copy of the minutes of the meeting on CCTV for all to view.

AL Baldasaro

[Michael Fisher]

Nice letter, APB!     It was great to meet you at the protest the other day.


hankster, are you out of your MIND?   

[APB]

Nice letter, APB!? ?? It was great to meet you at the protest the other day.


hankster, are you out of your MIND?? ?

Thanks, Same here! I am glad that we are on the same sheet of music in a lot of issue's and not just ED.

[Kat Kanning]

All I need to know about it is that the state is taking the land, and the owners don't want to sell.  That's stealing.  End of story.

[APB]

All I need to know about it is that the state is taking the land, and the owners don't want to sell.? That's stealing.? End of story.

Kat, you got it right. I have been saying that for the past couple of years. I went from this is a land grab, to this is legal thievery.

[APB]

How many landowners are involved ,? who is fighting ?? Who have agreed to accept DOT offers?

I can not post thier names without thier permission. My lawyer is handling about 5 cases that I know of and I refered more to her. Brian Farmer, if I am not mistaken was given the list of all the land owners invoved last year by DOT. What I will do, is here is the NH Department of Transportation Representative info who is handling the ED. Robert Barry - Bureau of Municipal Highways. His phone # is 603-271-2107. I am sure that the freedom of information act covers this situation where they are required to release the info. My lawyer has all my documents, which has all the comments and letters from the landowners. As a matter of fact, I only knew of 2 people that were happy with selling. One was the Town and the other resinded his original views. There are about 70 landowners involved, but not all are from Londonderry. Other towns are involved.

[Russell Kanning]

If we had a couple of addresses (general even), we could use some online map.