Little guys losing their land to big guys has been a hot topic at Locke ever since the Supreme Court’s appalling Kelo decision and actually for some time before the ruling as state-sanctioned land grabs happen more often than most people suppose — even in North Carolina, a state which respects private property rights more than many other states. So it is not surprising one land grab is unfolding close to home.
The big guy is BIG, Crescent Resources. Crescent started life as Crescent Land & Timber after Duke Power handed all its non-utility property to the rights-of-way securing outfit. The company is now trying to develop Mint Hill Pavilion at Lawyers and 51. So far, so good.
But due to some sort of mix up, Crescent does not have enough land to put in the turn lane that local government traffic engineers say the project requires and Crescent no doubt agreed to build. The owner of the land needed for the turn lane is Fred Frazier, who seems to own quite a few parcels around the county, which indicates he knows a thing or two about real estate values. When Crescent approached him with an offer of $8,250 for the land they need for their project Frazier rejected it as too low. Here’s where things get interesting.
Crescent then goes to the Town of Mint Hill asking it to use the town’s power of eminent domain to compel Frazier to sell his land at a price he regards as unfair. To the town council’s credit, they’ve rejected that approach and instead asked the town attorney to try to bring the two sides together on a number.
Now a strict reading of this case would say that Frazier’s land, were it to be taken by the town, would be taken for a “public purpose” — a street. Of course, the street widening is only a result of Crescent’s development of the adjacent land and the benefit of the taking would clearly accrue to Crescent — its multi-million dollar retail project could be completed without delay once enough land for a turn lane was in hand.
That such a taking of private land would actually be for a private purpose is obvious by imagining that the engineers were off in some other direction, requiring an attempt by Crescent to purchase adjacent land on which to site an ornamental fountain or some other incidental feature. No public purpose there either. A court in Arizona just took note of such real-world effects to stop a $220 million shopping development in its tracks.
No doubt — land grab.
