Being a non-lawyer, does anyone know whether the town can be required to sell the property needed for the proposed megachurch turning lane? If the town wanted to use it for some other purpose (such as a park) and the megachurch needed it for the turning lane is there such a thing as "reverse eminent domain" where a court could order the town to give up the property? As a taxpayer, I would rather see a nice park (or even grass) there instead or more asphalt. Any thoughts?
I wouldnt think so. My guess is that the only thing they couldnt prevent them from having is the existing driveway access which crosses the property/easement. I think that would be tough to restrict since the previous tenant was given access acrossed it. I think it would still end up being one hell of a ****ing match in court if the only reason they couldnt build was because the town wouldnt sell the strip to let them follow the mandates from the county, but thats only one small piece of the whole puzzle. There is at least a dozen things that are assummed or conditional or non-conforming that they need before being allowed to build. Also not being a lawyer though, who knows.
I belive that there is, but it is not called that. It is called something like "The Law of the Greater Public Good." Private orgs have been known to legally take land for that reason, and I would imagine that Ireland is just the man to try that little stunt.
To be more specific, if RT wanted to put a park there, Ireland could come running along and say that he needs that for his turning lane and put the kabash on it. I think that we would have a better shot of keeping that land if we made it into a Kiddie park today. It could still get taken, but it is wide open right now because it has no use whatsoever. At least RT could argue that Ireland would be taking away our kiddie park if we had one there. Not much of an argument against the "Greater Public Good" concept as it stands right now.
So folks, be sure that you are strapped into your seats.
