By JAN McLAUGHLIN
BG Independent News
Bowling Green City Council took action Monday evening to initiate eminent domain proceedings against two property owners along South Main Street.
The unanimous vote followed several questions by council members of City Attorney Hunter Brown, who assured those present that the “appropriation” of the land that fronts South Main Street was a last resort.
Successful negotiations have been completed for 10 of the 12 pieces of property needed for the project – with the holdouts being Albert Potter II and Action Rentals (owned by the Maurer family.)
The property is needed as part of the city’s South Main Street Improvement Project from Ordway Avenue to the city’s south corporation limit. The project involves water main replacement, pavement resurfacing and intersection improvements at Napoleon Road.
The purpose of the negotiations is to secure property needed to add a dedicated left turn lane from both northbound and southbound South Main Street to Napoleon Road.
After more than a year of negotiations, Potter reportedly refuses to accept the city’s offer of financial compensation for a “sliver” of his land at the southeast corner of South Main Street and Napoleon Road, where a battery business is located in a former service station.
Brown said a small triangle of the Potter land is needed for a curb cut and a pedestrian beacon at a crosswalk across Napoleon Road. Brown noted that the crosswalk would actually make it easier for people to access the battery business.
The Maurer property in question is a strip of land currently used for parking in front of the VFW Post in the 700 block of South Main Street. Though a verbal agreement has been reached between the city and Maurers about monetary compensation from the city, Brown said the deal has not been signed yet. So that property was also included in the resolution for the eminent domain action – just in case.
Brown explained that city officials would much prefer to handle negotiations outside of the courts. However, after a year with no results, the city retained outside counsel for the court process.
Though the resolution wording talks about the “appropriation” of land, “it is essentially an eminent domain action,” Brown said.
Council member Rachel Phipps questioned the need for three readings of the resolution and the declaration of an emergency. Brown said the “emergency” action would emphasize the public necessity and imminent need for the city to secure the property.
