https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Inverse condemnation is a term used in the law to describe a situation in which the government takes private property but fails to pay the compensation required by the 5th Amendment of Constitution. In some states the term also includes damaging of property as well as taking it. In order to be compensated, the owner must then sue the government. In such cases the owner is the plaintiff and that is why the action is called inverse – the order of parties is reversed, as compared to the usual procedure in direct condemnation where the government is the plaintiff who sues a defendant-owner to take his or her property.
The taking can be physical (e.g., land seizure, flooding, retention of possession after a lease to the government expires, deprivation of access, removal of ground support) or it can be a regulatory taking (when regulations are so onerous that they make the regulated property unusable by its owner for any reasonable or economically viable purpose).
And if the flooding doesn't destroy us quick enough for the fire sale taking with ZERO compensation- for a pittance more, surely Belfast City Attorney Kristin Collins, prior attorney with Maine Municipal Alliance and expert at manipulating statutes in favor of towns has a plan B in store for the undesirables... take your pick below.
http://www.rudmanwinchell.com/municipal-eminent-domain-authority/
LEARN ABOUT: Municipal eminent domain authority
By: Rudman Winchell Attorney Erik M. Stumpfel
Disclaimer
These materials have been prepared by Rudman Winchell for educational purposes only. They should not be considered legal advice. The transmission of this information to you is not intended to create a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. You should not send any confidential or private information to Rudman Winchell until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established, in writing.
Maine
municipalities, especially smaller communities, are traditionally
reluctant to exercise eminent domain authority for any purpose. However,
occasions arise when a municipality seeks to acquire land or buildings
for municipal purposes ranging from roads, schools, or parks to creation
of a municipally-owned business park. What does the town do in such
cases when the existing owner refuses to sell – either at all, or for
what the municipality considers to be a reasonable price? The U.S.
Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S.
469 brought new attention to this topic, in Maine and elsewhere.The Maine Revised Statutes contain at least five provisions authorizing municipalities to acquire land or interests in land by eminent domain.
Local Highway Law
Maine's Local Highway Law, 23 MRSA sec. 3023, 3024 and 3029 prescribes standards and procedures for municipal acquisition of land or easements for local road purposes.
Under section 3023, a municipality may take property or interests therein for local highway purposes "if the municipal officers determine that public exigency requires the immediate taking of such property interests, or if the municipality is unable to purchase it at what the municipal officers deem reasonable valuation, or if title is defective." The municipal officers must approve and file a condemnation order with the municipal clerk that specifies the location of the property to be taken by metes and bounds; names the record owner or owners of the property so far as can be reasonably determined; and specifies the amount of damages to be awarded as just compensation for the taking. The municipal officers then serve a copy of the order and the damages check on the affected property owners or, if the power of appropriation rests with the town meeting, the municipal officers submit the order to the town meeting in the form of a warrant article for town meeting approval.
The town meeting may amend the damages award upward, but otherwise must approve or disapprove the order as drafted by the municipal officers. If the order is approved by the town meeting, a check in the amount of the damages award is immediately served on the affected property owners. However approved, a true copy of the order must be filed at the local registry of deeds per 23 MRSA sec. 3024, to be effective against any property owners or abutters who have not received actual notice. Title to the property vests immediately in the municipality upon the earlier of service of the damages check or recording of the takings order under section 3024.
Appeals are governed by 23 MRSA sec. 3029. An aggrieved property owner may appeal the municipal damages award to Superior Court for a de novo hearing. Either party is entitled to have the damages case tried to a jury. Any challenges to the underlying taking normally proceed by declaratory judgment action, and not by a direct appeal.
In addition to roads, the same chapter authorizes municipal use of eminent domain to acquire "bridle paths and trails" under section 3151. An additional requirement under this section is that "no cultivated or improved land shall be taken without the consent of the owner and a 2/3 vote shall be required for the acceptance of such paths and trails by any town."
Damages for road takings are governed by 23 MRSA sections 154 through 154-F. These provisions apply equally to road takings by the State of Maine and municipal governments.
Under section 154, damage awards must be based on the "highest and best use of the property at the date of taking", minus the remaining value of the property after the taking; both of which are to be based on "fair market value" concepts. Section 154 also provides for payment of "severance damages" when less than an entire parcel is acquired, and the taking diminishes the fair market value of the land not taken – for example, when only part of a building lot is acquired, and the remaining portion no longer meets municipal code requirements. This is an important concept in a variety of contexts.
Section 154-A provides that any increase or decrease in the value of the property "caused by the public improvement for which such property is acquired" or by the likelihood of its acquisition for the project concerned, is not taken into account in determining eminent domain damages. For example, if a landlocked parcel with no road access is taken as part of a town road project, damages for eminent domain purposes are based on its fair market value as a landlocked parcel, and not based on its development potential after the road goes through.
Section 154-B prohibits coercive action in negotiations to establish a price for voluntary conveyance.
Section 154-C allows an owner to require the State or town to acquire the owner's entire parcel, if the proposed taking would leave an "uneconomic remnant". This occurs most frequently when a State controlled access highway project divides an owner's parcel, leaving a remnant parcel with no road access.
Finally, Section 154-F allows the assessment of "special benefits" against the property owner, but only allows special benefits to be offset against severance damages awarded to the same owner. This provision assures that, at a minimum, the affected property owner will receive the full fair market value of the land or interests actually taken by the State or municipality.
General Municipal Takings Statute
Under 30-A M.R.S.A. § 3101, a municipality may acquire real estate or easements for any public use by using the condemnation procedure for town ways. However, when proceeding under this statute, the municipality may not take any land without the consent of the owner if, at the time of the taking, the owner or the owner's family resides in a dwelling house located on the land. Additionally, land taken under this section may not be used for any purpose other than the purposes for which it was originally taken, except that land taken for a public park may be conveyed to the federal government to become part of a national park.
Community Development Statute – 30-A M.R.S.A. § 5204
Under Maine's Community Development statute, 30-A MRSA sec. 5201 et seq., municipalities may designate community development project areas or districts and adopt community development programs where there exists deterioration, dilapidation, slum and blighted areas, dangerous buildings and incompatible use of property, which constitute a serious threat to the public health, safety or welfare of the residents, and where the threats are beyond the remedy and control solely by regulatory process in the exercise of police power. The goals of these community development programs are to redevelop and rehabilitate these blighted areas through acquisition and preparation of land and its subsequent sale or lease. These purposes are declared by the statute to be public purposes for which public money may be expended and property acquired.
A municipality adopting a community development program is granted enhanced statutory powers within the designated area, under 30-A MRSA sec. 5203(3). Those powers include:
"A. Acquisition by purchase or eminent domain of any vacant or undeveloped land and of any developed land and structures, buildings and improvements existing on the land located in designated slum or blighted areas for the purposes of the demolition and removal or rehabilitation and repair or redevelopment of the property so acquired."
Section 5204 prescribes procedures for municipal takings under the community development statute. These procedures are similar to, but not identical with, the procedures prescribed under Title 23 for local highway takings. Most significantly, community development takings under sec. 5204 are not subject to the limitations contained in 30-A MRSA sec. 3101 for other non-highway municipal takings. Specifically, a municipality may use the community development statute to acquire owner-occupied residential property, even if the owner does not consent, and use of property taken by the municipality is not restricted to the specific use for which it was taken.
However, if the municipality disposes of unrehabilitated property acquired by eminent domain under the community development statute within ten years after its acquisition, 30-A MRSA sec. 5203(3)(E) normally requires the municipality to offer the original owners an opportunity to re-purchase the property for the amount of the original damages award. The statute makes an exception for properties that were acquired for assembly into a larger parcel consisting of what were originally three or more contiguous lots.
Municipal Development District Statute – 30-A MRSA sec. 5223(4)
This statute allows municipalities to designate "development districts" within their municipal boundaries that meet certain statutory criteria under section 5223(3). Within these districts, municipalities may acquire land or easements pursuant to an approved development program, by purchase or eminent domain. If eminent domain is used, section 5223(4) incorporates the eminent domain procedures of the community development statute, in section 5204.
Municipal Revenue-Producing Facilities Act – 30-A MRSA sec. 5403(6)
This statute authorizes municipal eminent domain acquisition of "land, rights in land or water or air rights in connection with the construction, reconstruction, improvement, extension, enlargement or operation of revenue-producing municipality facilities." "Revenue-producing municipal facilities" include parking facilities; water systems; sewer systems; airports; telecommunications systems; and energy facilities. Of these, only parking facilities must be located entirely within the corporate limits of the municipality. The other types of facilities listed may extend beyond the municipal boundaries.
An unanswered question in Maine law is whether municipalities may use the eminent domain powers granted by this statute to acquire land for revenue-producing municipal facilities (other than parking facilities) if the land is located outside of the municipality concerned.
Section 5403(6) does not specify a procedure for eminent domain takings under this statute, so by default the provisions of 30-A MRSA sec. 3101 would apply.
Federal Acquisition Regulations
Many municipal projects receive grant funding, either directly or indirectly, from federal funding sources. Common sources of federal grant funding include, among others, Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program grants; community development block grant funding administered, in most cases, through the Maine Department of Economic and Community Development; "Rural Utility Service" grants from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (UDAG); Land and Water Conservation grants from the Department of the Interior; and U.S. Department of Transportation grant funding for local road projects, usually administered through the Maine Department of Transportation.
Most, but not all, federal funding sources require compliance with the "Federal Acquisition Regulation" ("FAR") if grant funds are expended to acquire real estate or other property interests for grant purposes. In cases to which it applies, this imposes a procedural overlay on the municipal eminent domain authority otherwise granted by Maine law. In general, the FAR requires the municipality to (a) obtain a fair market value real estate appraisal of the property being acquired (sometimes with an additional review appraisal); (b) make a written to the owner offer of not less than the fair appraised market value for the property being concerned; and (c) leave the offer open for the period stated in the FAR; before the municipality may initiate eminent domain proceedings.
Constitutional limitations
All municipal takings under Maine law are subject to the takings provision of the Maine Constitution. Article I, section 21 of the Maine Constitution provides as follows:
Section 21. Private property shall not be taken for public uses without just compensation; nor unless the public exigencies require it.
As discussed above, "just compensation" is subject to de novo review in Superior Court. In numerous decisions, the Law Court has held that "public exigency" is a legislative determination, essentially unreviewable by the courts.
However, the Law Court has held that the phrase "public use" imposes a substantive limitation on the authority of the State or other public bodies to acquire private property by taking. As summarized by the Court in Blanchard v. Department of Transportation, 2002 ME 96, para. 29,
. . . property is devoted to public use only when the general public, or some portion of it (as opposed to particular individuals), in its organized capacity and upon occasion to do so, has a right to demand and share in the use [citation omitted]. The public has to be able to be served by the use as a matter of right, not as a matter of grace of any private party. The use must also be public at the time of the taking, 'not only in a theoretical aspect, but rather in actuality, practicality and effectiveness, under circumstances required by public exigency' [citation omitted].
Under this standard, the Law Court has regularly rejected, as being beyond the State's constitutional takings authority, the use of eminent domain power for purposes such as addressing private title deficiencies, correcting faulty lot layout, or compelling transfer of title to a new private owner.
However, in Crommett v. City of Portland, 150 Me. 217, 107 A.2d 841 (1954), the Law Court recognized "slum and blight removal" as a "negative public use", thereby upholding the City of Portland's eminent domain acquisition of the plaintiff's property for the purpose of blight removal. The Law Court further held that the City of Portland's subsequent sale of the property concerned to a new private owner, following removal of the blighted structures, did not defeat the constitutionality of the City's actions, because the "negative public use" for which the property was taken had been fully accomplished. The private and special act under which Portland had acquired the property at issue in Crommett, the "Slum Clearance and Redevelopment Authority Law" of 1951 (P&S Law, 1951, Chapter 217), became the template for the current community development statute. Notwithstanding the Law Court's Crommett decision. Article 1, Section 21 of the Maine Constitution continues as a substantive limitation on municipalities' statutory eminent domain powers and bars the use of eminent domain for the purpose of transferring ownership of property from one private owner to another private owner for a non-public use. In this important respect. the term "public use" under the Maine Constitution must be read much more narrowly than the term "public purpose". Economic development and job creation may constitute a "public purpose" sufficient to justify the expenditure of public funds, but without more cannot justify the use of municipal eminent domain powers to acquire property for anything other than a public use.
Kelo v. City of New London
In 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), in which the court held gat the use of eminent domain for "economic development" qualified as a "public us within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment's takings clause. In reaching this result, the Supreme Court declared that, for purposes of federal constitutional analysis, the term "public use" has essentially the same meaning as the phrase "public purpose". The Kelo decision does not address arguments based on the takings provisions of the Connecticut or other state constitutions.
The controversy in Kelo arose when the City of New London, Connecticut condemned privately-owned, non-blighted real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan that was intended to create new jobs, generate tax revenue and build momentum for a downtown revitalization project. Significant to the controversy was the City's decision to lease some property to private developers for nominal sums in exchange for agreements by the developers to develop the property.
In determining that taking private property for economic development satisfied the "public use" requirement of the Fifth Amendment, the Supreme Court emphasized its longstanding deference to legislative judgments of what serves a "public purpose." The Court explained that it is the takings purpose, and not its mechanics, that determines public use. The Court rejected the contention that the fact that a State immediately transfers properties to private individuals diminishes the public character of the taking. Cf. Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984) (Hawaii statute that took fee title from lessors and transferred to lessees, for just compensation, to reduce the concentration of land ownership serves a public purpose). However, because the focus was on the legislative judgment of what constituted a public purpose, the Court preserved the opportunity for states to define for themselves what constitutes a public purpose and to place restrictions on the state's exercise of the takings power.
Post-Kelo Reaction
Resulting public outcry concerning the perceived loss of property rights protection led many state legislatures to adopt post-Kelo restrictions on state and municipal eminent domain powers. Although the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. New London did not alter the Maine Law Court's "public use" jurisprudence under Article I, section 21, of the Maine Constitution, the Legislature and Governor's office were not immune from the temptation to take politically popular action. Despite advice from a number of municipal practitioners that Kelo would have no impact on Maine residents' property rights, the Maine Legislature, in 2005. enacted 1 M.R.S.A. § 816 to read:
"Sec. 816. Limitations on eminent domain authority
1. Purposes. Except as provided in subsections 2 and 3 and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the State, a political subdivision of the State and any other entity with eminent domain authority may not condemn land used for agriculture, fishing or forestry or land improved with residential homes, commercial or industrial buildings or other structures:
a. For the purposes of private retail, office, commercial or residential development;
b. Primarily for the enhancement for tax revenue; or
c. For transfer to an individual or a for-profit business entity.
2. Blight exception. Subsection 1 does not apply to the use of eminent domain by any municipality, housing authority or other public entity based upon a finding of blight in an area covered by any redevelopment plan or urban renewal plan pursuant to Title 30-A, chapter 201, 203 or 205, but just compensation, in all cases, must continue to be made to the owner.
3. Utilities exception. Subsection 1 does not limit the exercise of eminent domain by or for the benefit of public utilities or other entities engaged in the generation, transmission or distribution of telephone, gas, electric, water, sewer or other utility products or services.
4. Governmental purposes not affected. Nothing in this section may be interpreted to prohibit a municipal or county governing body from exercising the power of eminent domain for purposes not otherwise prohibited by subsection."
In subsection 2, the new statute expressly preserves the existing authority for municipalities to use eminent domain for slum and blight removal, as upheld by the Maine Law Court in Crommett. At best, therefore, the statute provides no new protections for Maine property owners, but merely codifies existing case law. However, section 816 also presents the possibility that courts asked to apply the new statute, using the traditional rules of statutory construction, may strive to give the statute independent effect, thereby inferring new substantive limitations on state and municipal eminent domain powers that go beyond the specific public concerns raised by Kelo. Like many laws adopted primarily for show, section 816 may well spawn presently unanticipated consequences.
CONCLUSION
Whether you are a municipal manager or selectman trying to navigate through the procedural requirements for an eminent domain taking, or a landowner seeking to assure fair treatment and just compensation in taking that affects your land, it is important to have the advice of experienced legal counsel to help you through the process.
8/27/14 City Hall Breaking Law Title 17 & 38/Engineer states CASS studies were done
City Council, Mayor, City Manager Joe Slocum, Mandy Olver (Seaview Terrace Engineer), and Cyndy Mackey(EPA),
At the work shop this evening for Seaview Terrace (not taped), City
Attorney Bill Kelly referenced Title 17- it is criminal to send
accumulated water to another. The plans to channel more puddled water to
me is criminal.
Kelly did not mention Title 38. The big one. Mandy Olver can certainly
share with Cyndy Mackey the impact and erosion to Seaview Terrace which
is not a natural outlet, we are a flood plain, flood zone private
property. We are the recipient of massive forced runoff and melt off
from miles outside of Seaview Terrace with no rights of ways or
easements, from all the City of Belfast human activity .
The 1939 map is further proof. Section 40- the farm house is still on
the corner of Northport Ave and the now Seaview Terrace. No stream, not
even a ditch.
To the right of the red 40 is the still standing farmhouse on the corner of Northport Ave and Seaview Terrace. THERE IS NO STREAM ON THIS PROPERTY- NOT EVEN A STINKING DITCH. NO NATURAL OUTLET.
The tell tape is where my 2 ft wide- 1 ft deep private property drainage
ditch was. No stream- just a ditch like the 2 on each side of my house.
That spring melt, rapids expanding 12 ft wide over 4 ft deep would come
crashing through for over 10 days. Good bye yard. Good bye new life.
Title 38: WATERS AND NAVIGATION
Chapter 3: PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF WATERS
Subchapter 1: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BOARD
Article 2: POLLUTION CONTROL
§420-C. Erosion and sedimentation control
A
person who conducts, or causes to be conducted, an activity that
involves filling, displacing or exposing soil or other earthen materials
shall take measures to prevent unreasonable erosion of soil or sediment
beyond the project site or into a protected natural resource as defined
in section 480-B. Erosion control measures must be in place before the
activity begins. Measures must remain in place and functional until the
site is permanently stabilized. Adequate and timely temporary and
permanent stabilization measures must be taken and the site must be
maintained to prevent unreasonable erosion and sedimentation. [1997, c. 502, §1 (AMD).]
A
person who owns property that is subject to erosion because of a human
activity before July 1, 1997 involving filling, displacing or exposing
soil or other earthen materials shall take measures in accordance with
the dates established under this paragraph to prevent unreasonable
erosion of soil or sediment into a protected natural resource as defined
in section 480-B, subsection 8. Adequate and timely temporary and
permanent stabilization measures must be taken and maintained on that
site to prevent unreasonable erosion and sedimentation. This paragraph
applies on and after July 1, 2005 to property that is located in the
watershed of a body of water most at risk as identified in the
department's storm water rules adopted pursuant to section 420-D and
that is subject to erosion of soil or sediment into a protected natural
resource as defined in section 480-B, subsection 8. This paragraph
applies on and after July 1, 2010 to other property that is subject to
erosion of soil or sediment into a protected natural resource as defined
in section 480-B, subsection 8. [1997, c. 748, §1 (NEW).]
This
section applies to a project or any portion of a project located within
an organized area of this State. This section does not apply to
agricultural fields. Forest management activities, including associated
road construction or maintenance, conducted in accordance with
applicable standards of the Maine Land Use Planning Commission, are
deemed to comply with this section. This section may not be construed to
limit a municipality's authority under home rule to adopt ordinances
containing stricter standards than those contained in this section.[1995, c. 704, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); 1995, c. 704, Pt. C, §2 (AFF); 2011, c. 682, §38 (REV).]
Title 17: CRIMES
Chapter 91: NUISANCES
Subchapter 3: PARTICULAR NUISANCES
§2802. Miscellaneous nuisances
The
erection, continuance or use of any building or place for the exercise
of a trade, employment or manufacture that, by noxious exhalations,
offensive smells or other annoyances, becomes injurious and dangerous to
the health, comfort or property of individuals or of the public;
causing or permitting abandoned wells or tin mining shafts to remain
unfilled or uncovered to the injury or prejudice of others; causing or
suffering any offal, filth or noisome substance to collect or to remain
in any place to the prejudice of others; obstructing or impeding,
without legal authority, the passage of any navigable river, harbor or
collection of water; corrupting or rendering unwholesome or impure the
water of a river, stream, pond or aquifer; imprudent operation of a
watercraft as defined in Title 12, section 13068-A, subsection 8;
unlawfully diverting the water of a river, stream, pond or aquifer from
its natural course or state to the injury or prejudice of others; and
the obstructing or encumbering by fences, buildings or otherwise of
highways, private ways, streets, alleys, commons, common landing places
or burying grounds are nuisances within the limitations and exceptions
mentioned. Any places where one or more old, discarded, worn-out or
junked motor vehicles as defined in Title 29-A, section 101, subsection
42, or parts thereof, are gathered together, kept, deposited or allowed
to accumulate, in such manner or in such location or situation either
within or without the limits of any highway, as to be unsightly,
detracting from the natural scenery or injurious to the comfort and
happiness of individuals and the public, and injurious to property
rights, are public nuisances. [2005, c. 397,Pt. A, §11 (AMD).]
Sincerely,
Laurie Allen
Also in this work shop was the bomb shell from Mandy Olver of Olver
Engineers. Her firm read my blog about the corruption at the Captain
Albert Steven's School site conditions of approval. Joe Slocum refused
to respond my request for the impact study and engineers report. After a
year, I was still requesting that, and he finally responded they were
not done. That was in 12/2012. Mandy Olver stated tonight that she was
the engineer and she did the study and report. Joe Slocum is sticking to
his lie. His response after I re-requested with Mandy's confession (Joe
was there and clearly heard it) was he responded back in 12/2012.Below
is the history (copied from another post)
The
school (CASS) storm runoff was never approved to flow to the watershed
residents ( encompassing 1 mile wide 2 miles down). My property's dry
small 1 ft high 2 ft wide ditch turned into wild, torrent, rapids for a
week in my first spring, 3/2011. Weeks later, it was 4-5 ft deep and
close to 12 ft wide. Over 1/4 of my property was ripped away with it -
video in the City Council meetings tab. City Hall doors slammed shut on
my fingers. The cover up began, water does not lie, City Hall does. I
began following the water and asking for maps and development plans in
4/2011. All proving public documents with held, manipulated, or not
existing. The sickest tactic City Hall uses is that they have given me
the documents, will give them to me again but that I am too stupid to
read them. Yet, they refuse to allow an independent official to validate
that the true documents were given.
The CASS file had ALL stormwater documents removed prior to my "appointed" viewing- and I mean all. I spent 4 hours under Planning supervision going through every paper in the over flowing huge files, at least 4. My daughter was ill, and with me. She laid her head on the lower counter where City Planner, Wayne Marshall would slam the half door trying to disturb her and anger me. The viewing conditions there were crammed, intense and difficult. A local contractor had come in while I was there and I knew him from my childhood in neighboring Bayside, Maine.. XXX XXXXX said this was bad. He had read about me in the paper. He also needs Planning cooperation for his business. Like many in town. I saw the sadness in his eyes telling me he could not help me. No words, needed, I understood. I was on my own against the thugs.
I found one 10 page document from WBRC engineers, stating the runoff was to go to the bay via Miller St (the approved route all hidden from me) I asked for a copy of this one document, and was told to come back the next day for it, but call first to tell them exactly when I was coming. I came the next day but did not alert City Planner, Wayne Marshall. I only got 9 pages of the 10 page document. The page stating storm water to flow to Miller St was NOT copied. (Later I called WBRC and they refused to give me a copy of the document).
City Hall did not know when I was coming in to get the copies. City Planner Wayne Marshall was not hovering, was not even in the office. I asked the administrative assistant, Marie Stalworth to let me see that original document. She could not find it. I asked her to let me see the files again. That document was now missing from the file but A BONANZA of storm water documents were back in the files. The 28 acre site was wetlands- found were Army Corp, DEP, residents concerns, engineers reports, emails, a slew of other with held documents. I had to work fast before Wayne came back. I quickly pulled some damning documents and asked for copies on the spot.
At this point I was crying and shaken at the sheer corruption and evil treatments from Wayne Marshall, Joe Slocum, City Council Mike Hurley, Zoning and Code Officer Tod Rosenburg. The knowing of the torture to silence me, that laid ahead to save my home, my only asset, recently unemployed, no savings, and now forced to shell out 2k in undisclosed flood insurance, was frightening, would this break me? This was my time to heal and nurture my children with full attention and stability.
Administrative assistant, Marie could not refuse me. For the City to do this to employees and residents beholding to them is disgust in the lowest form. I see it in all their eyes, there are many more. Who would think that 3 years later, I am still begging for infrastructure as City Hall takes the 5th and City Manager-Joe Slocum, and City Planner- Wayne Marshall shoot me over and over. City Council refused to investigate, aided and abetted in the deception and slander. In fact, City Council called me in as a threat to the Chief of Police. Then, the City Attorney would step in with sending intimidating letters, telling me not to come to meetings to speak, stating that City officials have been instructed not to respond to me, trying to force me into a legal battle, stating I must get legal counsel to speak for me, and that I was harassing them, see www.belfastbullies3. blogspot.com for his letters. He said as City Officials they have a decorum to maintain...
One of the documents I took was the Captain Albert Stevens School (or Belfast Elementary School) Site Plan & Use Permit Adopted Conditions of Approval, Final Approval of November 20, 2002 & Amendment #1 to Approval of January 15, 2003 Amendnment #2 to Approval of April 9, 2003.
#11 Addresses storm water analysis study implementation to the water shed residents, and engineers report and follow up after completion, and upgrades to Miller St to take all site runoff to the bay. Since 2011, I had asked for the reports and finding for these and was ignored. Flat out ignored and City Council and City Hall took the 5th ordered by the City Attorney, Bill Kelly. I'm holding the certified receipt of the request signed by Joe Slocum. I sent the requests, over and over for 3 years, relating the same in 20 meetings. Maine Freedom Of Information Attorney General's office, Brenda Kielty was useless. In 12/2013, City Manager Joe Slocum finally responded (full email above tab- 12/4 pictures and Joe Slocum's deceptive...) stating that the site permit conditions had been violated and were not fulfilled. The conditions that would have protected the residents from the corrupt slaughter of water illegally sent to private property and bypassing the approved sewer and 1 1/2 million improvements to that sewer on Miller St. Add in all the illegal snow piling and melting.
City Hall, City Council, some Realtors, and some residents are offended by ME ?? City employees are advised not to help me, some neighbors are upset because I have publicized that our properties are destroyed and dangerous from City slaughter. Other residents who don't want to help, don't care, and want window dressing and recreation because that will increase THEIR home values have some have stated cruel online words against my facts- and the businesses, they have their hands out all the time for our tax dollars. I would think these businesses are threatened with my protesting and dislike me as well. Belfast Bicycles and Upper Cut Hair Salon are kind to me. No movies, it is owned by City Council Mike Hurley. I'm a lone mom, standing up against the corrupt bullies of City Hall and Realtor.
In the meeting I read through the 3 of many conditions violated, a permit never should have been issued. Here they are. In bold blue is City Manager Joe Slocum's response- full emails above click on tab 12/4 pictures and Joe Slocum deceptive response...) 3 years later and with out one concern but visible anger instead for my whistle blowing of the destruction and danger, of the City Water Slaughter to Seaview Terrace. 1 inch of runoff is 1 foot of water to Seaview Terrace up to 3 inches (that I have been able to measure.) Past 3 inches, and can happen at ANY event, it will surely be higher and we're slaughtered by their water. City Manager, Joe Slocum refuses to place us on the radar of Waldo County Emergency Management (that 3/2012 meeting below) It is clear that they will come in for Inverse Condemnation after their slaughter by water to Seaview Terrace.
Inverse condemnation is a term used in the law to
describe a situation in which the government takes private property but
fails to pay the compensation required by the 5th Amendment of
Constitution. In some states the term also includes damaging of property
as well as taking it. In order to be compensated, the owner must then
sue the government. In such cases the owner is the plaintiff and that is
why the action is called inverse – the order of parties is reversed, as
compared to the usual procedure in direct condemnation where the
government is the plaintiff who sues a defendant-owner to take his or
her property.
The taking can be physical (e.g., land seizure, flooding, retention of possession after a lease to the government expires, deprivation of access, removal ofground support) or it can be a regulatory taking (when
regulations are so onerous that they make the regulated property
unusable by its owner for any reasonable or economically viable
purpose). The latter is the most controversial form of inverse
condemnation. It is considered to occur when the regulation of the
property's use is so severe that it goes "too far," as Justice Holmes
put it in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon,
260 U.S. 393 (1922), and deprives the owner of the property's value,
utility or marketability, denying him or her the benefits of property
ownership thus accomplishing a constitutionally forbidden de facto
taking without compensation.
Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has not elaborated on what "too
far" is, and the doctrinal basis for its jurisprudence has been widely
criticized...
Captain
Albert Stevens School (or Belfast Elementary School) Site Plan &
Use Permit Adopted Conditions of Approval, Final Approval of November
20, 2002 & Amendment #1 to Approval of January 15, 2003 Amendnment
#2 to Approval of April 9, 2003.11. Storm Water Management: The applicant shall construct all storm water management improvements to specifications identified on the approved Site Plan prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. Further, the applicant shall maintain all storm water facilities in good working condition.
The applicant also shall comply with the following additional conditions regarding the storm water management system.
11.1 The applicant shall either: a)Provide the City a letter from a licensed civil engineer certifying that the storm water improvements were constructed in accordance with Site Plan requirements; or b) Pay the City the cost to employ a City inspector to inspect construction of the storm water improvements. The applicant shall identify its preferred option when a building permit is requested. If the applicant chooses option b), the applicant shall pay the City, upon issuance of the building permit, the estimated cost of such inspection services.
City Manager, Joe Slocum 12/2013 "I cannot find, nor am I able to identify any letter from a licensed engineer or reports for the City Engineer that all storm water work was done as represented.
11.2 The applicant shall pay the City's cost to construct upgrades to its storm water system on Miller Street to accept additional storm water flows from the project site. This cost shall be $9,4331, and shall be payable upon issuance of a building permit for the project. Reference Letter dated November 4, 2002 from Wayne Marshall, City Planner, to Paul Luttrelle, SAD 34, and an accompanying letter from Mandy Hallway-Olver, Olver Associates, City Engineer, for an explanation of this fee.
11.3 The applicant shall pay a storm water impact fee of $5,000 to the City to better enable the City to conduct an analysis of the storm water drainage basin for the area located between Lincolnville Avenue and City Park. This impact fee shall be payable upon issuance of a building permit. The City shall hold this amount in escrow, and, if the City does not use the monies within 10 years from the date of issuance of the building permit, the City shall return these funds (with interest) to the applicant. The City shall only use these funds for the purpose of conducting an assessment of storm water concerns in this area, or constructing storm water improvements in this area. Further, by paying this impact fee, the applicant is held harmless from any requirement to construct any off-site storm water improvements. Reference letter dated November 4,2001 from Wayne Marshall, City Planner, to Paul Luttrelle, SAD 34, for an explanation of this impact fee.
City Manager, Joe Slocum, 12/2013 - "I am unable to locate any offsite drainage study relating to Captain Albert Stevens School. To the best of my knowledge the study was never done as referenced in the conditions of approval dated November 20, 1002 and again on November 15. 2003.
I acknowledge your request to meet with specific people to review these documents. I'm denying that request. The freedom of information law does not let you decide who you will accept as a monitor during your document inspection.
Here is my response to your request. I hope it is helpful." Joseph Slocum, Belfast City Manager
No comments:
Post a Comment