Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Boulder presses on airport eminent domain despite federal changes
The lawsuit seeks to force Barnow, 66, to sell either his property at 5864 Rustic Knolls Drive or the rights to his "through-the-fence agreement" that gives him permission to taxi a plane directly onto the adjacent Boulder Municipal Airport runway. (www.dailycamera.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
I know it's bad form to comment on your own posts, but this city (Boulder, CO) has really had some very poor eminent domain cases recently and they have all reeked of shady underhanded dealings. I know it's just a small, light use airstrip and, OK, the guy has to have a bit of money to live where he does and taxi onto his property ... but I have always wanted to be able to do what he does. I really hope this gets worked out because who knows what precedent this may set... and it doesn't look good for private land owners.
Hard to acertain all the facts (is it now fenced? gated? etc). Sounds like the city just doesn't want to pay for the forefathers agreements or abide by them either one. Peon elected officials throwing their government weight around. Doing what is right probably doesn't enter their minds.
If you have the Google Earth plugin, this is the link to what the property looks like:
http://g.co/maps/py2ut
It doesn't look very fancy, and looks like a dirt road leading to a shed-type hangar. I can't see a million dollars worth of improvements there, at all. The imagery might be a bit dated, but I have been around that curve there on 57th street numerous times and looks just like that. Rural, dirt road, middle of nowhere...
http://g.co/maps/py2ut
It doesn't look very fancy, and looks like a dirt road leading to a shed-type hangar. I can't see a million dollars worth of improvements there, at all. The imagery might be a bit dated, but I have been around that curve there on 57th street numerous times and looks just like that. Rural, dirt road, middle of nowhere...
Im sure your right about it not being worth a million dollars. But it is his. If they want it and are willing to pay, it wouldn't be the first time the government ever overpaid. The big question is "why do they need it?". I'll bet 99% of the taxpayers could care less.
I think maybe I didn't make myself clear, in the article it says:
"The city has said that providing safe access from Barnow's property to the runway would require construction of a taxiway at a cost of at least $1 million. Barnow said he's fine with making improvements, but he said that creating safe access is possible by installing inexpensive concrete cinderblocks from his property to the nearby runway.
"A couple of concrete blocks set into the dirt, I wouldn't think is a million dollars," Barnow said. "
What I meant is that I can't see spending that amount of money at all to provide "safe access" ... his access now isn't safe? It just sounds like a sum the city threw out there in order to muscle him into selling. But that's just my cynical two cents.
"The city has said that providing safe access from Barnow's property to the runway would require construction of a taxiway at a cost of at least $1 million. Barnow said he's fine with making improvements, but he said that creating safe access is possible by installing inexpensive concrete cinderblocks from his property to the nearby runway.
"A couple of concrete blocks set into the dirt, I wouldn't think is a million dollars," Barnow said. "
What I meant is that I can't see spending that amount of money at all to provide "safe access" ... his access now isn't safe? It just sounds like a sum the city threw out there in order to muscle him into selling. But that's just my cynical two cents.
Yes, alterior motives are probably in play. Safety is just a ruse. I thought the homeowner thought his property was worth a million too. Regardless, contracts are fast becoming a waste of paper.