ad

48 Comments

  1. 1

    Saul

    This appears to be stretching the bounds of government eminent domain for public purposes as it was originally intended.

    A small group of interested parties have conned a small group of people backed by the power of government to steal (yes, you have a $100 bar tab and you only leave $50, you just stole) from a private land owner. The stolen parcel of land isn’t a necessity that truly benefits the public. It’s a want of a select group of people to meet their desire and damn others in their way.

    If you own property along Peachtree Creek eminent domain will soon be flowing down stream. Rise up or get run over because they are coming your way.

  2. 2

    Thanks City of Brookhaven

    At one time people did not want the Silver Comet Trail but it is a huge iconic trail is used by thousands every day. I don’t believe it’s just a small tiny group I believe strongly that the city is making a smart decision.

    I can’t wait to use this trail with all the other folks.

  3. 3

    Heather

    PLEASE also look at the maps they have proposed to replace properties on and around Buford Highway as part of their PCG redevelopment plan.

    I run a lot of errands there and and some of the people DO NOT want to sell . . . .

  4. 4

    Thomas Porter

    Oh the irony:
    As we celebrate Independence Day,
    The City forcibly takes private property.

  5. 5

    Heather

    The city says 83% is unbuildable — so what about the other 17%?

    Why not a bike rental or a cafe stand as Brookhaven and PCG keep pushing?

    Only offering $340,000 for 19 acres when almost 20% of it is buildable is just crazy. This is straight-up robbery.

  6. 6

    Saul

    I believe you are incorrect about the Comet trail being unwanted. It is the reuse if an old rail bed that was purchased, without eminent domain, from the rail road owner. It has become quite a popular biking and walking destinstion. Rail line property that is no longer in use and particularly that rail land possibly in linear parcels in rural areas of limited value are bargains. If the Comet trail had been attempted by use of eminent domain it would never have happened. Especially with privately owned land by multiple property owners.

    So is this PCG a one eminent domain wonder?

    One thing I have never seen discussed is how this area will be taken care of and patrolled once completed. You are aware that there is a cost associated with maintenance and safety don’t you?

  7. 7

    Heather

    I don’t know how much people will speak to those they don’t know but I hope The Post will consider reaching out to some along Buford Highway and the creek that are very concerned about the city taking their property.

    Profiles of this nature I think would be very much appreciated.

  8. 8

    Heather

    I don’t know how much people will speak to those they don’t know, but I hope The Post will consider reaching out to some on Buford Highway and by the creek over their legitimate concerns about Brookhaven their property.

    Profiles of this nature I think would be very much appreciated.

  9. 9

    For the Record

    I find it interesting that the same folks who object to most actions by the City are the ones expressing outrage. Why not the real land owner? It’s also so easy to include the phrases “most people” and “small group” without any proof. The owner will have their day in court.

  10. 10

    Political Robbery

    The PDK green space cost us $173,000 per acre. (Terms = Unbuildable) Remington Rd. lot cost us $207,900 per acre. (Terms = Unbuildable)
    Mayor and Council want to only pay this guy $17,900 per acre and the justification is because he tried to appeal his tax burden assessment just like anyone else can and in their mind he is unreasonable? I hope this judge throws the book at Brookhaven and deflates their childish, arrogant behavior.

  11. 11

    BJS

    @For the Record, (AKA Elected Official) “Why not the real landowner?” Because you are taking him to court!!!!!
    “Most people” and “small group” are the mayors and his lap dog Park words for whom they rely upon. I’d like to see them provide proof of this phantom majority that contacts them privately and controls all of us.

  12. 12

    Barbara

    I hope this owner crushes the city in court. We are told that buffers enhance the quality of life and land value for everyone. An acre of land in Brookhaven is selling on average for over $500,000. Yet this 19 acres is worth $340,000 because of the wetlands? So because it can’t be built is worth less in this case because the city wants it. This is full abuse of power at its best. Who exactly voted for this on the council?

    Its time for Mayor Ernst to be removed from his little tower. This is wrong.

  13. 13

    Janine

    What a shill! Your logic is people don’t know what they want until we shove it down their throats! PCG can only get a handful of people to take their walks, just a few people dictating everyone’s lives including our mayor.

  14. 14

    Heather

    Perhaps our tweetin’ and wrastlin’ President has confused people about what is “normal”,
    but most lawyers advise people to not speak before a court case. If the land owner agreed with the price then the city wouldn’t be using eminent domain– is there literally no logic around here anymore? Or is gaslighting just the new normal?

  15. 15

    Heather

    A HALF acre in nearby Pine Hills is going for around $400,000. And this is not even commercial property- it’s to build million + dollar homes.

  16. 16

    Eddie E.

    What a sad, backward looking view of the world.
    Who is being denied anything?
    Why is it so difficult to comprehend that proper use for frontage of a State Waterway is not more pavement and fertilizer.

  17. 17

    Pretend Developers

    The city is using the logic that the owner can’t take advantage financially, but as soon as the trail is complete, the same small group of controllers will rezone the property, build multi-family apartments, a conference center and performing arts center, and take advantage financially with what they hope will be a higher tax digest.

    If the court strikes it down, we’ll be done with the PCG, and the City council can get back to paving, parks and stormwater. If not, they’ll continue to play in a real estate industry none of them could master in the private sector.

    This isn’t going to end well. Either it works and our parks, roads and Stormwater remain unmaintained, or the city ends up with disconnected parcels along Peachtree Creek good for nothing while they wallow in an uncompleted vision.

  18. 18

    Day in Court? Puh-leeeeeeez

    Would the PCG Board be willing to pay all court costs? Would the City council pay the land owner’s court costs from their own pockets?

    Doubt it. School yard bullies.

  19. 19

    Rob

    I guess we could just go ahead and let the landowner build that biomass plant that would run 24-hours a day. Oh yes, and it would come with these fabulous side impacts:
    Air pollution from carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and nitric oxide;
    Water quality contamination of the adjacent state waters (Peachtree Creek);
    Dust impacts during the loading/unloading of mulch;
    Ash spill impacts during transport of ash from the project site;
    Traffic impacts resulting from the hauling of 250 tons of mulch per day, 24 hours a day/7 days a week; and
    Noise impacts on the adjacent multi-family apartments to the east (across Briarwood Road) and west as the use proposes to operate 24 hours a day.
    All from https://brookhavenpost.co/2017/06/11/brookhaven-using-eminent-domain-on-19-acres-for-peachtree-creek-greenway/

  20. 20

    Judy

    Uninformed Eddie E.,

    What about this document says less paving and fertilizer?

    http://brookhavenga.gov/home/showdocument?id=6182

  21. 21

    Greg R.

    The sign says acquisition of Park Greenspace, but nowhere on the Parks Master Plan is a new park considered.

    This is so wrong.

  22. 22

    Barbara

    Eddie, please stop commenting on my posts. I don’t need to be called sad, dumb, or anything else. You need to grow up. Either that or the post needs t stop allowing it. We are a community, stop calling everyone names.

  23. 23

    But we are special ....

    All fine and dandy until it is your Yoga Studio or Dry Cleaners to put a road next to your house. Remember that….

  24. 24

    Scare tactic only

    @ Rob – Nice try. Will never happen. It was denied at Dekalb and would never fly in Brookhaven either. EPA and State would nix it also.

  25. 25

    Andy

    Well Eddie PCG is full of creekside pavement. The fertilizer although not treated is already there.

  26. 26

    Only in Brookhaven

    The posted sign says that a public hearing will be on June 29, 2017 at city hall. When mayor and council got to this item on the agenda NO PUBLIC COMMENT TIME WAS OFFERED OR OPENED. Now, the chicken agenda item was given public comment. Ironic! Eminent Domain went straight to a vote without any public input but Betsy’s chickens got the side yard setback reduced from 10′ to 7.5′. Morons!

  27. 27

    Susan

    Welcome to YOUR Brookhaven!

  28. 28

    Eddie E.

    So plant native, drought tolerant stuff that doesn’t require fertilizer.
    Remove all the old asphalt and create a REAL BUFFER!
    It ain’t rocket science.

  29. 29

    Eddie E.

    So why did the owner refuse to accept it would NEVER be built and the hope for magic appreciation was just hope?

  30. 30

    Andy

    Eddie I’m talking about the new hard surface walk the PCG will have and the existing sewage.

  31. 31

    Eddie E.

    Are we discussing the zoning errors of the past or the vision of the current Brookhaven Leadership to improve the banks of the creek for the future?
    ‘Property rights’ are not absolute and it is the responsibility of those adjacent to any State Waters to prevent contaminated runoff.
    Too bad that fact was ignored for so long.

  32. 32

    Heather

    So just because someone tries to sell their investment to someone you don’t agree with the government then has full authority to seize their property?

  33. 33

    Heather

    According to Brookhaven it has almost two buildable acres.

  34. 34

    Heather

    I’m not sure any of these public comment/discussion hearings are any more than dog and pony show “listening sessions”.

    Our elected officials politely wait it out for the PR it brings and then vote as they always intended.

  35. 35

    Barbara

    Then donate your property and home to the cause eddie. Lord knows we could use some more siper cheap green space across from the airport. It’s such a nice parcel, I can’t wait to turn it into a park for use for everyone but you since you will.

  36. 36

    Eddie E.

    Barbara,
    I don’t live in the creek bed (on purpose).
    The creek (state waters) has belonged to the State since before any property along it was purchased and that will always be the case.
    I don’t really understand why you believe that loudly stating some notion of ‘property rights’ makes it so?

  37. 37

    Barbara

    “The purpose of a TAD and a development authority is to develop what would otherwise be impossible to develop via traditional methods (“Deteriorating areas”). A large portion of the Drew Valley neighborhood is in this “Improvement plan” and we are about to grant powers to an authority based on a document that creates more questions than it answers. Is Drew Valley and Briarwood Park really a “deteriorating area?” Having walked the entire neighborhood in the past few weeks, I would disagree.”
    — John Park, Software Engineer and Ashford Park Resident since ‘07

  38. 38

    Barbara

    “Redevelopment Authorities (RDAs) are created to manage crisis and blight. We are not in a crisis. Brookhaven commercial sites attractive for investment exist but they are not “blighted.” Northeast Plaza, for example, is no more “blighted” than Cambridge Square. For me, the referendum boils down to whether you believe intervention by government is required to accelerate the creation of a better Brookhaven. I’m happy with the City of Brookhaven now and confident it will continue to improve without RDAs.”
    — Kim Gokce, HillsDale Neighborhood

  39. 39

    Barbara

    “Any house built before 1974 is subject to “eminent domain” under the Redevelopment Powers Law. Our forests and floodplains began to be largely replaced by suburbia as early as 1964. “Eminent domain” could wipe out all the neighborhoods in the Nancy Creek basin alone in the name of “progress.” “Progress” in which direction?? Is the question before us what team are we on, or what game are we playing??”
    — Tom Reilly, Brookhaven Resident since 1953

  40. 40

    Brittany Mother

    That lady needs to take her head out of the sand because there is a city councilman with a plan.

  41. 41

    Saul

    I think that’s a guy. But obviously he doesn’t understand the roll of D4 as planned by D1.

  42. 42

    Barbara

    He is now on the Greenway Steering Committee

  43. 43

    Saul

    Barbara let me correct myself. He does understand the role of D4 and obviously wants to participate in the planned redevelopment of Buford Highway. Evidently he has no problem with eminent domain. We in D1 don’t have to worry as we have the D1 Angel to insure we maintain our residential enclave with no fear of development beyond our desires. Like no Kroger gas station for example. The D1 Angel takes care of his people. D4 is screwed.

  44. 44

    Drucker

    PDK and the Remington road parcel were both “buildable” parcels. Approximately 3 acres of this parcel is buildable. Granted this is a lower price per acre for the buildable acreage than those other two transactions you reference, but this might be due to other factors. I suspect that the eminent domain price will be higher than the cities estimage of fair value ($110k per buildable acre).

  45. 45

    Sarah

    OIB – It appears that they only let Betsy think that she got her 7.5′. The Ordinance and Code read differently.

    Ordinance 2017-06-03 – Chickens
    Sec.1
    Sec. 5-32 (a) (5) = All structures and enclosures for the keeping of animals must comply with setback requirements for accessory structures.If requirements between this section and the regulations for accessory structures differ, the more restrictive shall control.

    – VERSES –

    ARTICLE IV. – SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS
    Sec. 27-1408. – Accessory buildings, structures, and uses.
    (3) All accessory buildings or structures shall be located in the rear yard of the lot. No accessory building or structure shall be located closer than ten feet to a side or rear lot line in any district.

  46. 46

    Sam

    How many homes are going to be torn down? I didn’t see that mentioned anywhere. How can it be said its in the city’s best interest without addressing that?

  47. 47

    Sam

    Y’all can’t wait for the poor people to be gone. That’s what ur waiting on. Brook haven already has New green space in the works by PDK.

  48. 48

    Sam

    Where did u find the Maps?

Comments are closed.