More than two dozen business owners and landowners have gone to court with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) over payments for their property the state says it needs to acquire for the upcoming 2020-2021 Highway 61 project.
The owners contend MnDOT—who is acquiring properties and easements for the Highway 61 improvements through right-of-way acquisition (R.O.W.) and eminent domain—isn’t offering them enough money for their land.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued their case(s) on Monday, December 9, at the Cook County courthouse.
In the summer of 2020, MnDOT will begin the reconstruction of Highway 61 through Grand Marais from 1.8 miles north of Cutface Creek to 0.1 miles south of County Road 14, to resurface, improve accessibility and replace box culverts.
MnDOT uses R.O.W. as part of its highway and transportation procedure. Early in the process, the state gathers data such as project plans, preliminary R.O.W. and utility assessments, identification of the owners of the property needed for the road development, etc., and then determines what they believe is fair market value for each property. And therein lies the rub.
Once MnDOT has made its appraisal, it notifies the owner, who is then presented with an estimated value of the property. Following that, MnDOT contacts the landowners and negotiates a final price. So far, few property owners have accepted the offer from MnDOT, hence the court case.
If a landowner can’t agree on a price for their property, the commissioner can file a “Right of Order” so the land can be acquired for the project.
After an initial hearing for a condemnation petition, the district court will verify whether condemnation can proceed. The court looks at three things: Is the taking of the land “for public use or purpose?” Is the acquisition through “condemnation” necessary? And, is the condemnation and taking of the property “authorized by law”?
If the court concludes these three factors are present, it grants the petition and appoints local commissioners to resolve any dispute as to “just compensation.”
The court has ruled that MnDOT has legal authority to acquire property by eminent domain for state trunk highways. MnDOT doesn’t have to show an absolute necessity to claim the land. Still, it must prove that “It is enough to find that the proposed taking is reasonably necessary or convenient for the furtherance of a proper response.”
Using that finding, on Nov. 26, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison wrote, “MnDOT has introduced evidence to establish that the forthcoming improvements to Highway 61 are exactly that. Upon introduction of the commissioner’s orders, MnDOT has submitted evidence to establish that the land identified in the orders is necessary for the project.”
Mike’s Holiday Inc. filed a petition with the state of Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation on Nov. 26. The petition stated, “To the honorable judge, please take note that Mike’s Holiday Inc. hereby objects to the petition of condemnation on the following grounds. 1) The petition does not adequately describe [the] lands of Holiday to be taken by eminent domain. A landowner’s frequent right to receive just compensation for private property taken by the state through eminent domain is established by both Minnesota and the United States constitution.
“The petition is constitutionally defective in that its description of the lands to be taken cannot be traced out on the ground with certainty and that lack of certainty renders it impossible to determine what compensation is just.”
Also, “The petition does not allege a taking of access while the Petitioner’s Highway 61 reconstruction plan shows that Holiday will be deprived of Highway access. Wherefore, Holiday respectfully requests the court to dismiss the petition, or in the alternative, set an evidentiary hearing of trial.” Attorneys Tyson Smith and Nora Huxtable represented Holiday.
Right across the street from Holiday, South of the Border (S.O.B.) filed a similar petition with the court, using the same two lawyers who argued, the petition does not adequately describe the lands of S.O.B. to be taken by eminent domain. “There is a fundamental right to just compensation for private property taken by the state through eminent domain. This fundamental right is established by the Minnesota and the U.S. constitutions.
“The petition is constitutionally defective in its description of the lands to be taken and renders impossible the determination of what compensation is just.
“The petition does not allege of taking access while Petitioner’s Highway 61 reconstruction plan shows that S.O.B. will be deprived of Highway access.
“Wherefore, S.O.B. respectfully requests the court dismiss the petition or in the alternative, set an evidentiary hearing or trial.”
The court-appointed commissioners have 30 days from the Monday trial to negotiate with the landowners for a fair price. If a new price is agreed to, and the state thinks the landowner is getting too much money, it has the right to appeal and start the process over. All of the business owners can choose the option of waiting for the two-year road project to be completed and then show the state how much money they lost because of the roadwork and lack of access to their business. All in all, while the land will be acquired, the process to determine a fair price could take years.
Leave a Reply