endlesschatter

The last sentence says it all….

City Utilities will use eminient domain, if needed | News-Leader.com | Springfield News-Leader

City Utilities will use eminient domain, if needed
City officials hope agreement can be made, say too late to find alternative sites.

Amos Bridges • News-Leader • April 25, 2009

Officials with Springfield City Utilities hope to avoid using eminent domain to acquire property for a new downtown bus transfer facility but say the process has advanced too far to consider alternative locations.
Advertisement

A feasibility study commissioned by the utility identified three tracts of land on the corner of St. Louis Street and Benton Avenue — directly north of the Discovery Center — as the best site for the new station.

CU has reached contracts with two of the property owners but so far has failed to strike a deal with Springfield businesswoman Becky Spence, whose land at 505 St. Louis St. is the former site of the Arbor Hotel.

On April 17, the Board of Public Utilities unanimously approved the use of eminent domain — a process allowing government entities to buy private property even if the owner is unwilling to sell — if it becomes necessary to seal the deal.

“We do not take this at all lightly, and we hope it doesn’t come to that,” said CU President John Twitty.

Negotiations with Spence — who has not responded to repeated calls from the News-Leader — are continuing, Twitty said Thursday, and no deadline has been set by which an agreement must be reached.

“It would be wonderful if we can arrive at an arrangement and eminent domain won’t have to be used,” he said.

But Twitty said Spence’s resistance is not adequate reason for the utility to consider another location.

“I don’t think there’s any way you can make eminent domain look pretty, but we’re doing it for the common good,” he said. “We have conducted two exhaustive studies to determine the best site. We believe we have found it.”

Of the top four locations identified in the consultants’ report, Spence’s property is part of the top two. The third-ranked site, at the corner of College Street and Grant Avenue, includes occupied property and would be next to a high-end condo development, while the fourth site, the former Earthgrains building on East St. Louis owned by John Q. Hammons, is larger — and potentially more expensive — than CU needs.

April 26th, 2009 | Tags: Government and Politics, liars club, local | Category: Government and Politics, Open | Leave a comment

There seems to be some confusion between what a “park” is and what a “square” is. If the area that is being discussed is an open area where people can go and hang out without having to buy anything then I would say the area is a park. On the other hand if the area is being used to entice patrons into the area so the local retail establishments can get them into their shops then I would call that either a mall or commercial square.

News-Leader.com | Sarah Overstreet

Square’s nuisance factor growing

Some of us have begun to think of the “park” in Park Central Square as an attractive nuisance.

Adults and kids with nothing to do — or at least, think they can find nothing else to do — hang out there regularly. They monopolized the gazebo when there were still benches in it. They still inhabit it to a lesser degree, now just leaning against it. Once in a while, some of the Square visitors are publicly intoxicated. Kids hang out with their friends day after day, hour after hour. Some skateboard on the concrete ledges and bricks, others play in the fountain. Recently, Public Works had to shut off the fountains to repair damages to it.

Personally I see a lot of problems with the whole park/square problem. Firstly the shop owners in the area think they should get preference on better parking for their customers, using the handicap excuse is always good fodder. The same goes to the people saying the same things for handicap spaces for ease of access to the State building. There are handicap spaces just around the corner already and with all due respect those spaces appear to be more than adequate.
It’s pretty sad to think that for anyone going to the cities public square should have to buy something. The way I see it is that every citizen here has already purchased something through our taxes and the square should remain its open public area that it already is. Another thing to consider is that the area was once a parking area already, and was changed to a public square. From comments in the article the city removed the benches and turned off the power to the area, chasing people out, why are they complaing now that nobody comes to visit it?

July 6th, 2007 | Tags: local, stupid people | Category: Rants | Leave a comment