Timothy Firestine, Chief Administrative Officer of Montgomery County, is asking the Council to condemn the land outright using its power of eminent domain. In a memo on behalf of County Executive Ike Leggett, Firestine writes that MCDOT wants to install a 24" drainpipe, curbs, storm drains and gutters along Wapakoneta Road, from Namakagan Road to Walhonding Road. The County has negotiated with 5 homeowners on Wapakoneta and Wehawken since April 2015 to obtain right-of-way for the improvements, and temporary space for construction staging.
So far, MoCo has reached agreements with 2 of the 5 affected property owners. The project is running out of time to negotiate further, Firestine says, and he is now asking the County Council to "obtain immediate possession of portions of those properties for which the County has not yet been able to negotiate an amicable resolution with the Property Owners."
Homeowners of one of the Wapakoneta properties in question are currently reviewing a potential agreement with the County, but have not signed it yet. Owners of the second home on Wapakoneta have not agreed to sell. Firestine says they "do not want to lose their trees."
The permanent easement being sought along Wapakoneta is 1,505 SF; the two construction easements would be 2,502 SF (Wehawken) and 1,500 SF (Wapakoneta).
Today's agenda item is an introduction of the Advance Taking resolution. A worksession on the matter is currently scheduled for November 2.
21 comments:
The teapot called. It wants its tempest back.
no chill
Why does Dyer want to prevent the residents of this street from having functional storm drains?
And does he understand what the term "easement" means?
There goes the county knocking down trees again.
10:34: Where in the article did I take one side or the other? I've simply brought another hush-hush story to light.
And do you understand what the terms "perpetual easement", "advance taking", and "private property" mean?
It's hardly "hush-hush". The parties affected were notified quite some time ago.
And perhaps the reason it hasn't been covered more widely in the local news media is because involves only a few feet of frontage on five yards, and of those five, only two will be permanently affected.
1:16: The greater public was not aware of it.
Perhaps the reason it hasn't been covered more widely in the local news media is because it doesn't involve Hans Reimer.
2:00: Speaking of local media, Ken Hartman has fallen off the wagon and is once again using the taxpayer-funded BCC Regional Services Center email newsletter to repeatedly link to my competitor. There have been numerous stories he could have linked to on my blog over the same few weeks. This is an abuse of taxpayer funds.
@ 2:49 PM - Poor you. Kleenex?
Where is this imaginary prohibition against public agencies linking to or otherwise citing private news sources?
Have you considered the possibility that Mr. Hartman does not link to you, because he has no confidence in your ability to objectively report on issues?
Hartman prefers Steve Hull's dull monotone writing style. :)
But, seriously, Hull hasn't, and will never, write a critical word about MoCo government. Hence, MoCo government employees prefer Hull.
Problem is, we're not paying Ken to be a media critic.
Either include Dyer or stop linking. Dyer is well established in the county.
Any questions?
"Any questions?"
1) Why are you such a pathetic shill for Dyer?
2) Why don't you have any self-respect?
3) Why do you and your hero think that the mere act of linking or citing an article from a website is "being a media critic on the taxpayers' dime?
It's not government's role to promote one particular news site over another.
On personal time, sure. But not under the county seal in official communications.
I'm not sure it's in the county's best interest to link it conspiracy theory websites.
It's not promotion. It's simply providing news links for the public.
It's certainly not the job of government employees to read every local news source and provide links to each one. So he probably found the one he considers most consistently reliable and links to that one.
4:07: It's definitely promotion, because there are official government webpages Mr. Hartman could link to for each of these topics, and he chooses to gratuitously link to my competitor instead.
"Conspiracy theory websites"? This is a news website. Are you talking about your favorite site, that claimed the BOE chair was conspiring with Hogan to disenfranchise voters while he was undergoing a painful chemotherapy treatment? Embarrassing.
Betsy, G. Money: Nice try. He knows my site is "consistently reliable" but is seeking one that is consistently favorable to MoCo Government, and the folks who decide if he gets to stay in that position. Unfortunately, that's neither legal nor ethical when taxpayer funded accounts are used to promote that friendly private website.
Where exactly Does it say it is not legal to prefer certain sources over others? I casually perished MoCo policies and can't find any such restriction.
*perused*
Can you provide an example?
And yes you have news and yes you have conspiracy theories such as the tennis court deeper meaning. And this is my favorite site for the drama. :)
It doesn't say that anywhere. There's nothing illegal about it.
Post a Comment