Comments on: Speaking of Eminent Domain… City Looks to Seal the Deal on #1 Liquors

By: Laura

Laura — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:38:16 +0000

Wow! That’s absurd. Sure, it’s an eyesore. How about giving the business owner some of the funding to fix his sign? How about planing some trees along the side of Rt 1 to give it some cover?

Looks like College Park wants gentrification, not economic development.

Maybe they should start by fixing up Rt 1. The road is littered with garbage, sign posts, ugly utility and light poles, wires everywhere… No number of parks will make Rt 1 look pretty until they clean up the trash.

Like or Dislike: 3 1

By: Robert Catlin

Robert Catlin — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:16:07 +0000

Wow. Kirk is clueless about the City’s acquistion of the two houses on Yale. The City bought the two small properties for almost $1.7 million. The City’s initial offer was well over $1 million. The property owners never threatened legal action (no basis at all for such a lawsuit), as the City filed the papers to initiate the legal action of condemnation after 12 months or more of attempted negotiation failed to achieve anything.

Like or Dislike: 2 0

By: Kirk

Kirk — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:37:48 +0000

I thought/heard that when they started the High rise development they told the developer that they already had the rights to the store. The city tried eminent domain on the houses on Yale Ave (Behind Bentleys, New parking garage) offering pennies on the dollar for the property. The owners had to threaten legal action to get them to pay what it was worth. Here’s an Idea–Concentrate more on traffic problems then bulling property owners. There has been a Liquor store in that spot for 35+ years,so one would think it’s one of the few places of business that has been profitable in that area.

Like or Dislike: 0 1

By: jeuill

jeuill — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:43:21 +0000

“What legal mechanism would you propose to accomplish this?”

Easy. HOA’s do it all the time. Create an aesthetics zone where adjunct businesses can’t look starkly different than the rest. I don’t know. Call it a beautification zone or something. Or at least let the colors match. Stucco is cheap.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Matt C

Matt C — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 06:54:21 +0000

““Force them to redesign the store that fits more into the overall plan.”

“What legal mechanism would you propose to accomplish this?”"

The same that would be used to condemn a building for reasons not including structural deficiencies?

I’m not at all sure on the law, but wouldn’t it make just as much(if not more) sense to be able to force a building to look a certain way than to make it look like it just got razed by the city?

Especially one that still has legal owners and occupants.

I’m all over the place on this issue. I personally don’t want the store there. It looks like crap. But, so does the high rise behind it. Hand in glove, and all.

I’d like to say that I’d support re-locating them, but at the same time I kinda feel like they’ve earned the jackpot location.

I hope the council members that voted to force the store out feel a bit bad about taking away someone’s business. I also thank them for making CP look a lot better. When it happens.

However, putting a park there is absurd.

Like or Dislike: 0 0