Existing state routes should be used by trucks
Wednesday, August 01, 2012 1:50 AM
To the Editor:
I would like to respond to the Troy Recker's explanation of how fair the acquisition process is in compensating residents of Road 5 for the eminent domain seizure of their property for the Road 5 widening project.
Mr. Recker would have us believe that the commissioners and the engineer's office are "only being fair".
Would you consider it fair that your property would be involuntarily seized for the princely sum of $7.00 or $11.00? These are the appraised values that two of the property owners in Phase II have received from the county.
Mr. Recker states that the minimum the county can pay a property owner is $300.00. "If the appraised value for the amount comes to less than that, we still have to pay out $300.00."
How magnanimous......the property owners can be condemned to a lifetime of semi- trucks whizzing by feet from their homes; sleepless nights from the constant, never ending noise and jake brakes at all hours of the day and night; the danger to children and pets; health issues from breathing the exhaust fumes; and permanently lowered property values for living on a "designated truck route". Would you voluntarily accept $300.00 as just compensation for this fate?
The two property owners have leach beds which drain into a pipe that runs parallel to the road. Who will be responsible for the cost of any damage to the drainage pipe and the leach beds of the owners? According to Mr. Recker, "the $300.00 payment also includes reimbursement for damage to property not acquired". Will the property owners incur more expense as a result of the road widening?
Make no mistake that if permitted, the commissioners would compensate the owners less than the price of a bag of potting soil for the land being seized for this project.
The properly designed state routes are already existing and should be used by trucks rather than spending millions of dollars to make a county road a designated truck route.