Yes, they consider this routine to buy "strips of land for right of way and easements" for over $600,000 each. It is routine enough the Interim County Manager lists the items in the "consent" agenda, which means unless a Board member pulls the item for discussion, it is automatically approved for payment.
Just like that... $600,000 times 2 = $1.2-million. Do you know how
many antique wood boats I could buy with that amount of money? All the
boats in the nearby picture. I could even hire attorneys to paint
my boat dock to match the boat's varnished finish!
Here are copies of the actual "Public Works" agenda sections:
| Tab 13 | Approve and execute a purchase agreement with Rocky Mount Development Co., Inc. for the purchase of strips of land to be used for right of way and easements for the Hooks St. Phase IV Segment B Project in the Clermont area. Fiscal impact is $616,500.00 Commission District 2 | |
| Tab 14 | Approve and execute a purchase agreement with Fox Hill Builders, Inc. for the purchase of strips of land to be used for right of way and easements for the Hooks St. Phase IV Segment B Project in the Clermont area. Fiscal impact is $659,500.00 Commission District 2 |
Now, the staff and Board might say "well, we have to do it to expand the roads to meet growth plans..." and that this is the way it has been done for years.
But, if the County approves land use planning, why can't they...
require the DEVELOPER of the nearby projects to pay for the needed expansion "strips of land"?
And, why can't they pass an ordnance that anyone that has land adjacent to specifically defined roads must contribute the needed strips of land BEFORE any development can occur.
I have sat at Board meetings where once a school is planned, or other infrastructure project is planned, staff says the local land use attorneys immediately contact the owners of the adjacent land with the needed "strips" and offer to negotiate higher prices. And, they do. Then the Public Works staff has to explain what the price is, and try to rationalize why the County should pay it.
So. the lawyers, and the land owners hold the County ransom for big bucks to buy strips of land for expanded intersections, turnouts, etc. and the taxpayer pays for it, rather than the guy with the land who will make big bucks from development.
I am sure that someone will say State laws or interpretations mandate the current practice to enrich attorneys, but a true leader would find a way to stop this continuous fiscal fiasco.
I am not saying to take away property rights. I am saying that a process is needed so land owners know that the County has certain needs for growth, and the land owner has a responsibility to contribute to the pot by providing the needed "strips of land" which will increase their property value.
We need some new leaders in the County Commission who will find a way to stop this game. Maybe the new Commissioners will find a way to devise an Ordnance or process to stop it.
We can hope.
vj
