Council OKs taking private property for public use
City can take possession of any property, even if it hosts a home
Casey Cheney
Issue date: 11/20/08 Section: News
If the Hillsdale City Council deems a project a public necessity, it now has the power to take possession of any property interfering with that project, as of its Monday evening meeting.
This includes property that hosts residents' houses, Mayor Michael Sessions said. But he expects most property owners to negotiate with the city, so the council may never need to use this power.
"This just gives us the ability that if all our negotiations fail, that option is still there," he said.
During the general public comments, Greg Morgan, a Hillsdale College employee, challenged the council's decision, calling it a violation of the right to own private property laid down by the Founding Fathers.
"In 10 minutes, I'd like to be watching the new episode of 'Chuck,'" he said. "But I'm here exercising my right to life, liberty, and property."
The city would seize properties in question by condemnation. It could only do so if the property were needed to complete a "public, governmental and municipal function exercised for a public purpose and a matter of public necessity," according to a memo sent to council members.
Sessions said the city would be liable to compensate the property owner.
The council passed the resolution 8-0.
The council spent most of the meeting discussing an ordinance to amend the city's stance on outdoor sales.
After a heated discussion, a 4-4 vote botched the ordinance.
The amendment would have regulated the size of the outdoor sales and display areas and where sales activities and displays can take place. In addition, it would have required that all sales and display areas be restricted to paved areas. Each site plan would require the approval of the Hillsdale County Planning Commission.
The council's greatest concern arose from the removal of the word "new" from the amendment, which would require each product being sold to be new. The council feared the exclusion of "new" in the description of the items being sold would open the door for shabby flea markets and other unsightly displays possibly posing a turn-off for visitors to Hillsdale.
"A lot of people don't want to see car auctions and rummage sales," Councilperson Dave Williams said. "I don't think you want to see this on the main drag."
Sessions and City Manager Michael Mitchell argued the term "non-consignment items" would prevent any unsightly displays, as it requires the seller to own the item being sold.
"We assumed they would put out a nice product because they want to sell it," Sessions said.
Councilperson Doug Moon was not convinced this was adequate.
"Someone's always going to push the envelope," he said. "It could snowball. If we could enforce it, I wouldn't have a problem with it."
The council agreed to return the ordinance to the planning commission for further revision.
"If you allow only new, which was originally discussed, I'm fine," Williams said. "It's the difference between new and used that bothers me."
This includes property that hosts residents' houses, Mayor Michael Sessions said. But he expects most property owners to negotiate with the city, so the council may never need to use this power.
"This just gives us the ability that if all our negotiations fail, that option is still there," he said.
During the general public comments, Greg Morgan, a Hillsdale College employee, challenged the council's decision, calling it a violation of the right to own private property laid down by the Founding Fathers.
"In 10 minutes, I'd like to be watching the new episode of 'Chuck,'" he said. "But I'm here exercising my right to life, liberty, and property."
The city would seize properties in question by condemnation. It could only do so if the property were needed to complete a "public, governmental and municipal function exercised for a public purpose and a matter of public necessity," according to a memo sent to council members.
Sessions said the city would be liable to compensate the property owner.
The council passed the resolution 8-0.
The council spent most of the meeting discussing an ordinance to amend the city's stance on outdoor sales.
After a heated discussion, a 4-4 vote botched the ordinance.
The amendment would have regulated the size of the outdoor sales and display areas and where sales activities and displays can take place. In addition, it would have required that all sales and display areas be restricted to paved areas. Each site plan would require the approval of the Hillsdale County Planning Commission.
The council's greatest concern arose from the removal of the word "new" from the amendment, which would require each product being sold to be new. The council feared the exclusion of "new" in the description of the items being sold would open the door for shabby flea markets and other unsightly displays possibly posing a turn-off for visitors to Hillsdale.
"A lot of people don't want to see car auctions and rummage sales," Councilperson Dave Williams said. "I don't think you want to see this on the main drag."
Sessions and City Manager Michael Mitchell argued the term "non-consignment items" would prevent any unsightly displays, as it requires the seller to own the item being sold.
"We assumed they would put out a nice product because they want to sell it," Sessions said.
Councilperson Doug Moon was not convinced this was adequate.
"Someone's always going to push the envelope," he said. "It could snowball. If we could enforce it, I wouldn't have a problem with it."
The council agreed to return the ordinance to the planning commission for further revision.
"If you allow only new, which was originally discussed, I'm fine," Williams said. "It's the difference between new and used that bothers me."
Be the first to comment on this story