Monday, October 12, 2009

Russo was right

Here's today's story about the beach nourishment from the Daily News.

I just want to point out here that what Vincent Russo said was true - "taking" by eminent domain means paying.

These people who are holding out will get PAID for the 20 feet or so of property that is the target of the action.

I'm not sure, because I have not seen the easement documents, that much, if any, compensation is involved in the permanent easements.

I really think, personally, that the talk of eminent domain should have been held off, or held back, because now there is the scent of money in the water.

I don't know if that's the motivation; I spoke to 'holdout' Christine Florio, but I don't know her. She was not in front of me, and I could not tell if she genuinely believes in her argument or if it's spurious.

All I know is - she and the rest of her family would get paid for what others volunteered.

And I cannot imagine that it will make those who volunteered very happy (as I imagine it won't make them happy if they change the language in the easement documents, which I don't believe they can in any case).

The 24 other people did the right thing for their neighbors; if anyone should get any money out of this, it should be them.


Bubba said...

I think you need to research the distinction between a complete taking and taking for easements or rights of way. The compensation for the latter is typically nominal as there is no transer of ownership.

Gillian Swart said...

Well I did, Bubba ... and it looked to me as if the rights of way were specifically for utilities, sidewalks, etc. And the holdouts did sign the temporary easements ... But I certainly will take another look.