[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=55908.81

Weber Owners Unhappy With Negotiations

Jason Miller
The News-Dispatch

MICHIGAN CITY - Michigan City officials offered $175,000 to the owners of Weber Sign for their property five years ago, but Kathy Weber said this week that to move her operation, the cost is much higher.

"I don't know. I don't have a number," Weber said Monday of what it would take for her to accept an offer from the city. "But they gave (the owners of the nearby former Bensz property) $300,000. We officially turned that ($175,000) offer down (in 2002) and haven't gotten another number since."

Michigan City acquired the Bensz property in 2005 for $1, then paid the company about $300,000 to cover relocation expenses.

Weber and her husband are negotiating with city officials who want to purchase the 5,300-square-foot Weber Sign building and the property on which it sits at 730 E. Eighth St.

The property - along with the neighboring vacant Ice House property - are two of the three parcels in the sought-after Trail Creek corridor the city has yet to buy. Officials need the land because they plan to redevelop the city's North End, with Trail Creek a focal point of the work.

The other property the city is trying to acquire is Blocksom at Michigan Boulevard and Fifth Street. Company and city officials are negotiating over a purchase and relocation of the filter manufacturer, which employs 45 people.

Earlier this month, the city filed a lawsuit in La Porte Superior Court 3 seeking condemnation of the Weber and Ice House properties, and offered a purchase price of $1.

That price, according to Michigan City Redevelo-pment Commission Attor-ney Michael Bergerson, is simply for the land, which sits atop what Bergerson says is massive contamination.

He said the Webers have been offered "six figures" for various costs - including for relocation - as well as a spot in the city's East Side industrial park and a share of any grant money the city procures for toxic remediation.

"They just keep turning it down," Bergerson said. "Their building is a lot smaller than the Bensz (facility). The costs associated with relocation are different."

Bergerson said the Webers asked to be relocated into the Ace Towing building on West U.S. 12, but he said the city felt that building wasn't commensurate in size with the much-smaller Weber building.

"There's a retrofit that's needed to move this facility," Weber said. "We need new lighting, a new spray booth. We have chain-link fencing and security lighting. It's not cheap."

Kathy Weber was asked what type of a monetary offer from the city it would take to successfully relocate the facility and thus, end the standoff with the city. She did not have a figure.

Weber also rebutted Bergerson's contention the ground is so contaminated, no one other than the city would buy the property. Her Hammond attorney, Glenn Kuchel, said he and the city have proof the contamination is "minimal."

"The city's own study shows that the pollution is limited, but the city continues to use that as an excuse for treating the Webers and Sobkowiaks with (no) fairness," Kuchel said.

The Sobkowiak family owns the Ice House property.

"If the property is so valuable that the city needs it," Kuchel said, "why won't they pay the Webers and Sobkowiaks a fair amount so they can buy some other land to relocate their businesses?"



Contact Jason Miller at jmiller@thenewsdispatch.com.

[Roger Kaputnik]

Could you put in the letters from the ND re this? Good stuff.

PS: Just because it might be legal now to take the land via eminent domain, it still is not right, and I would oppose it on principle.

[Southsider2k12]

I still can't believe the Supreme Court upheld this in cases where there is clearly a private, not a public, benefit. I don't see how it is constitutional at all. Property rights were definately a key part of the bill of rights.

[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=35090.65

Is Assessed Value Only $1, Too?
Thank you for such an interesting article in the paper today regarding the Weber Sign property. One sentence reads that the city wants to pay Bill and Kathy Weber $1 for their property because the city taxpayers should not have to pay to clean up the property. Another sentence tells us that the City paid B&E $1 and used grant funds to clean up that property.

I feel that the city should pay the Webers the fair market price that is being asked for and start filling out the grant forms for the property clean up. The city could have already paid for this, had the clean up well under way and would be able to move forward with the new North End plan on this valuable property.

Is it true that the city paid B&E Marine $325,000 for moving fees (this actually replaced their building I understand)? Is it also true that the city is still taxing the Webers for this "worthless" property?

Stop wasting time (and taxpayers money on attorney fees) and just pay this small business owner what they are entitled to!

Kathy Callan

La Porte

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=35090.65

How Much Land Does City Own?
"Eminent domain sought for 'ice house,' Weber Sign properties" [Saturday] was an interesting, albeit incomplete article. If indeed the property is worth only $1 it would be interesting to know what those properties' assessed values for tax purposes were for the past 10 years.

Then, we, your readers could form a more informed opinion as to whether or not the property owners are being treated fairly, or being taken advantage of by the city for private gain. With more information I may just say "no big deal," but on the other hand I may want to ask the question "Who was that masked man in the gray flannel suit with the city sticker on his briefcase?"

This article also brings to mind a question asked in the past "How much 'private' property does the 'city' own, and how was it acquired?" Probably would make an informative front page article. Kind of reminds me of a play on some songs lyrics, "where have all the tax dollars gone?"

Henry S. Wroblewski

Michigan City

[mcstumper]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=35090.65
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=35090.65

Wouldn't there be a tax benefit to the Weber's if they received $1 for the property and instead of getting their money in the form of a relocation cost reimbursement? Hypothetically speaking, if they paid $100,000 for the property and the city pays $200,000 for it, they have a $100k capital gain. If instead they get $1 for the property, don't they get to record a $99,999 capital loss? Would the relocation reimbursement be considered taxable income? Any tax law experts out there? Is there a Guinness Book record for the number of sentences in a paragraph that end with a question mark?

As for the Weber's statements, I think it shows that they enjoy the position they are in. Why? because they want the Ace Towing building which I would guess will be the target of future acquisition efforts by the City as it expands its North side redevelopment efforts.

[Southsider2k12]

Wouldn't there be a tax benefit to the Weber's if they received $1 for the property and instead of getting their money in the form of a relocation cost reimbursement? Hypothetically speaking, if they paid $100,000 for the property and the city pays $200,000 for it, they have a $100k capital gain. If instead they get $1 for the property, don't they get to record a $99,999 capital loss? Would the relocation reimbursement be considered taxable income? Any tax law experts out there? Is there a Guinness Book record for the number of sentences in a paragraph that end with a question mark?

As for the Weber's statements, I think it shows that they enjoy the position they are in. Why? because they want the Ace Towing building which I would guess will be the target of future acquisition efforts by the City as it expands its North side redevelopment efforts.

Their tax gains are a whole lot less then their actual losses at a sales price of $1.

[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=58398.57

Weber Sign Owners Want Just Compensation
Recently, the Redevelopment Commission filed eminent domain proceedings to seize our property. While we acknowledge their right, we do not feel eminent domain is necessary because we are willing to sell our land for just compensation.

The commission freely proclaims the soil on our parcel is contaminated, but what it neglects to say is the contamination identified is a small percentage of the parcel and was caused by previous owners.

The commission recently purchased a similar, but more heavily contaminated parcel next to our property for $325,000. However, because we don't have political power or connections, the commission has decided to offer us only $1 for our building and half-acre lot.

For years we have operated our family business on the land and have paid thousands of dollars in taxes every year based on the government's assessment of our land. Now that the city wants to take our valuable land, the city claims it's worthless. When we bought this land in 1985, it was not desirable land, but over time, we turned the not-so-desirable land into a location for a thriving family business. Because the land has appreciated in value, due to its proximity to the casino, the city has decided to take our land and put us out of business, thus robbing us of our livelihood because we cannot afford to relocate without adequate compensation.

We have worked hard over the past 20 years and have contributed time, effort and money to improving the city. Now we are simply asking for what we rightfully deserve and what the Constitution guarantees us - just compensation for our land.

Bill and Kathy Weber

Weber Sign Service Inc.

Michigan City

[Ang]

I hope the City gives the Weber's the proper restitution. They should be paid well for the land and given a relocation allowance.

So much for the City taking care of their own.

[mcstumper]

No one cares that they weren't the ones who contaminated the property. They bought it without completing their due diligence, so it is their burden to bear.

As for the "its just a little contaminated" argument, isn't that sort of like being just a little bit pregnant? I honestly doubt there is much difference in the cost to clean half the parcel as compared to the entire parcel.

I think by far their best argument is the tax assessment. I'd love to see what that property is being assessed at. Oh, wait, that's public information.. Hold on...

Hmmm. $103,500. That is if I have the right parcel,
730 E 8 TH ST.
MICHIGAN CITY, IN 46360.

I think that's right.

The ghost of Ronald Reagan is whispering to me right now - "Takings. Takings."

Ok. Pay them, Chuck.

[Dave]

I still can't believe the Supreme Court upheld this in cases where there is clearly a private, not a public, benefit. I don't see how it is constitutional at all. Property rights were definately a key part of the bill of rights.

I agree with this 100%.

[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...&TM=36924.2

Eminent Domain Is Abuse Of Power
The intent of compensation law is basically to leave the property owners as well off after the eminent domain taking as they were before. It is not clear to me how the Redevelopment Commission thinks they are meeting that requirement to the Webers with their ludicrous "compensation" offer of $1 for a half acre lot with a 5,300-square-foot building housing an income-generating business.

The relocation offer hardly covers the cost of purchase for a new property, let alone actual moving costs and the substantial retro-fit required for the fumes and spray generated in sign making. Rather, their offer made without benefit of requisite good-faith negotiations for the fair market value of the property and the adequate compensation for relocation of an entire business constitutes an appalling abuse of governmental power over law-abiding and community-building citizens.

The Webers have provided substantial remuneration to the city in the form of property taxes - assessed at several thousand dollars per year - since they purchased their Eighth Street property in December 1985. The property was certainly not worthless to my parents or to the city during these years. In a further irony, the value of Weber Sign Service to Michigan City was heralded just last year in a ceremony to recognize local business. Founded by my grandfather in 1937, Weber Signs has been in operation for 70 years.

Mr. Bergerson states that my parents are "dreaming" if they think they could get more for their property given its "contamination" - which was not caused by their business. The extent of this "contamination" has not been documented, nor does it prevent the lawful operation of their thriving business. It is only an issue for the city once it takes the property from the private citizens who currently validly own it.

Jill Weber

Philadelphia, Pa.

[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=33162.03

Redevelopment Responds
The Michigan City Redevelopment Commission agrees that it is indeed unfortunate that the process of eminent domain is being used to resolve the issue of the acquisition of the Weber Sign Co. property. It is understandable that the process elicits emotions that can lead to different recollections and interpretations of what actually occurred. I would like to present our position as to what has happened.

Eminent domain is the taking of land by a unit of local government for its public use. The MCRC is required to comply with Indiana law in all respects.

The MCRC was moved to acquire the parcels to allow for the construction of the Lafayette-Barker Storm Sewer System and to eliminate the blight and the environmental threat posed to Trail Creek by the pollution on real estate owned by the Webers and other adjacent property owners. This was affirmed at the MCRC meeting April 10, 2006, when a hearing was held to amend the original plan for redevelopment.

This action was taken, in part, due to a lack of response to any overtures the MCRC made to the Webers subsequent to the initial offer made in 2002. As a point of clarification, the offer was not $1 for the property and $175,000 for relocation costs as stated in The News Dispatch editorial of Jan. 24. It was $175,000 for the land and building and was based on a professional appraisal. Negotiation of relocation costs never took place as the offer was rejected without a counter offer being submitted.

The MCRC had no objections to paying relocation costs, and the Webers' attorney, Mr. Kuchel, emphatically told the commission to "make an offer." A negotiating session took place April 19, 2006, with Mr. Kuchel representing another client and the Webers. The cost of the environmental cleanup was a point of contention and the meeting ended with the understanding that he would explore the costs of an alternative cleanup process and get back to us. Although Mr. Kuchel was contacted repeatedly a response was never received.

The only response was a court challenge to the MCRC decision to pursue the acquisition of the Weber property. This action, while well within their rights, delayed the efforts of the MCRC.

Attempts to contact the Webers, including another offer, prior to the court hearing of Oct. 31-Nov. 1, 2007, did not elicit a response until a letter from Mr. Kuchel dated Oct. 24, 2007, was received requesting $550,000 for the property plus relocation costs plus up to $100,000 of any grant received to remediate the contamination. Mrs. Weber testified she thought the property was worth $750,000 and that they bore no responsibility for the environmental cleanup.

That's $750,000 for less than a half-acre parcel that is not adjacent to the creek, located in a blighted area, that has contamination estimated to cost $500,000+ to clean up and which is surrounded by other contaminated sites.

Judge Baldoni determined that the April 10, 2006, decision of the MCRC to amend the redevelopment plan and place the Weber Sign property on the "Acquisition List" for $1 was fair, reasonable and appropriate.

It is unfortunate that when the Webers purchased this property in a heavily industrialized area they didn't take the environmental ramifications into account. Their position that much of the contamination was there prior to their occupancy probably has some basis. Their contention that they did not contribute to the contamination and that it is minimal does not. Initial testing done (by certified laboratories) with the Webers' consent conclusively established the presence of contaminates consistent with what could result from ongoing operations. In 2004 the U.S. EPA denied the grant application of the MCRC for remediation of the Weber site because the owners have been identified as a potential responsible party. The cleanup cost estimates in excess of $500,000 indicate that this is more than a minimal problem. The law states that any liability for contamination is the responsibility of the current landowner regardless of its origin. The MCRC has offered to assist the landowners in this situation pursue remedies by filing claims against the previous owners' insurance companies. We have not been contacted in this regard.

In the past six years the MCRC has acquired approximately 15 parcels in the redevelopment area. We strive to act in a professional manner and negotiate in good faith. During this period the Webers and the Sobkowiaks are the only parties to raise the issue of just compensation.

The MCRC has a fiscal responsibility to the taxpayers to ensure that funds under its jurisdiction are spent prudently. Spending $750,000 for a parcel of land appraised for $175,000 to incur an additional $500,000+ cost to clean up the contamination that is legally the responsibility of the present landowner is a bit beyond our definition of "just compensation." It is not our responsibility to compensate the Webers for a mistake they might have made when they originally purchased the parcel or for possible mistakes that have been made since.

The Webers have requested just compensation for their land as guaranteed by the constitution. This has also been the position of the MCRC. It is unfortunate that the opportunity to see if such a figure could be agreed upon never presented itself.

The eminent domain process exists for circumstances such as this. The court will appoint three appraisers to determine the fair market value. If either party disagrees with the appraisers, they may ask for a jury to determine the fair market value.

We await the court's decision and will fully comply with its determination of property value and relocation costs.

Ken Behrendt, President

Michigan City Redevelopment Commission

[mcstumper]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=33162.03

Nice to have some additional facts.

I guess my whole point in this debate is that -in my opinion- the Weber's had a lot of foresight in buying this land. They must have known that this is prime real estate and at some point the city (meaning you and I, not Chuck and Michael) would want to redevelop it. By slumming the property the way they have, it creates an even greater urgency to get them moved out of there. When the city comes knocking, they just give some ridiculous number that assumes they should in no way have to accept less because it is contaminated land. Our dilemna is: do we pay the king's ransom or let them keep it and continue to not maintain their blight. Oh wait, what about emminent domain. No problem. If the city (you and I) try it, they will play the "we are the poor innocent everyday family being steamrolled by an oppressive government" card. And sure enough, for reasons I just do not understand, people like you and I feel the need to come to their defense. I do not believe these circumstances have been forced upon them, instead this is part of a plan well crafted by the Webers. They are out for a big payday that will come from whose pocket? Yours and mine. No thanks. Let the emminent domain procedings continue and let the courts decide a fair market value for the property. Then we can all move forward.

[Dave]

Eminent domain is the taking of land by a unit of local government for its public use....

---

The MCRC was moved to acquire the parcels to allow for the construction of the Lafayette-Barker Storm Sewer System and to eliminate the blight and the environmental threat posed to Trail Creek by the pollution on real estate owned by the Webers and other adjacent property owners. This was affirmed at the MCRC meeting April 10, 2006, when a hearing was held to amend the original plan for redevelopment.

Now I have a question here.

I don't think that taking a piece of land so it can be sold to developers to build on would be a "public use" (though the US Supreme Court may disagree with me). If it is a "public use," basically the government can take any piece of property from anyone anywhere for virtually any reason and transfer it to another private party. "Eliminating blight" would be an interesting term to define. One man's blight is apparently another man's ongoing family business.

As for the environmental issues, I've been under the impression that unless there is something significant happening (provable pollution of the groundwater or toxic runoff, for example), cleanup isn't required during ongoing use. I could be wrong here.

But I have to say I am unclear on the sewer thing. What's up with that? Is the sewer project planned to run directly under the Weber's property, requiring the demolition of whatever buildings there for excavation? If so, well, I can see where eminent domain may apply, because that could be a legitimate "public use."

[mox1981]

I noticed that the Redevelopment Commission has posted the environmental assessments online...

MCRDC

For the Sobkowiaks:

Ice House Property

And for the Webers:

Weber Sign Property

Good info...

[mcstumper]

"Eliminating blight" would be an interesting term to define. One man's blight is apparently another man's ongoing family business.

As for the environmental issues, I've been under the impression that unless there is something significant happening (provable pollution of the groundwater or toxic runoff, for example), cleanup isn't required during ongoing use. I could be wrong here.

But I have to say I am unclear on the sewer thing. What's up with that? Is the sewer project planned to run directly under the Weber's property, requiring the demolition of whatever buildings there for excavation? If so, well, I can see where eminent domain may apply, because that could be a legitimate "public use."

Drive by the business. Overgrown and garbage strewn. If this was next to your house I am sure you would call it blight.

I think you are right that the government cannot force you to clean contaminated property unless that contamination is leaching somewhere. However, if the city were to obtain it for redevelopment, I bet we would all agree that it would be irresponsible of it not to then clean the property before turning it into a park or selling it to developers.

As for the sewer issue, I agree with you. It looks to me like the city is making contingency plans unless the "elimination of blight" argument doesn't fly.

Let's get people like the Webers, who are trying to unfairly profit from our hopes and dreams of a better hometown, out.

[Dave]

Let's get people like the Webers, who are trying to unfairly profit from our hopes and dreams of a better hometown, out.

Hmmm.

What exactly makes it unfair? They bought a piece of property, they think its value has arguably gone up, and they think they should profit from it. Or possibly, in light of the environmental issues, they are simply trying to make the best of a really bad situation. I'm certainly not going to start throwing stones, my house is too glassy.

After looking at the links in mox1981's post, it does appear that there are environmental issues with the property, and contamination of groundwater and runoff may be included. If the Weber's bought the property and it was already contaminated, or if the contamination is due to their use, from the point of view of the public and adjacent landowners, is really irrelevant, they need to clean it up. It's possible the money to do so could be done by claims against prior owners, or prior owners' insurance companies, but they have to clean it up.

After looking at the link, it seems to me that the Webers really might want to take the deal with the redevelopment commission, seeing as the document talks about removal/abatement of 1,200 cubic yards of contaminated soil.

In a way it's a shame their property isn't actually waterfront. They could take out all that contaminated dirt and put in a whole lot of boat slips in the space.

[mcstumper]

What exactly makes it unfair? They bought a piece of property, they think its value has arguably gone up, and they think they should profit from it.

Point taken. And, all is fair in love and war.

[Dave]

Point taken. And, all is fair in love and war.

And seeing as this isn't a war, and I doubt any of the parties have amourous intentions, I guess everyone involved will just have to follow the rules of law.

But, as I said above, considering the possible environmental issues, the Webers may be negotiating themselves into a hole.

[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=52604.78

Pollution Was Under Marina Location
It has become increasingly disturbing for me to read articles in this paper about the desire of our Redevelopment Commission and its attorney to take for $1 the former Ice House, subsequently Jo-Car Service, from its property owners under the guise of pollution.

As a young man, I worked for Joseph. H. Sobkowiak doing laborer work on his property at Eighth Street and Michigan Boulevard. On occasion I personally witnessed workers spilling fuel oil while unloading railroad tankers into Standard Oil's large storage tanks just west of the former Ice House property. There was a year-round standing pool of fuel 20 to 30 feet from the northwest property line of Jo-Car beside the railroad tracks. I witnessed this for many years while cutting grass.

I doubt if there even was an environmental study done 10 short years ago on the former Standard Oil or railroad property gobbled up by the Trail Creek Marina. I would be willing to point out to any of these present-day good-doers or their henchmen where to drill for oil (environmental contamination) on that property.

In fact, when did the city become so environmentally pious, or conveniently environmentally conscious? Where were all of these people when truly polluted properties were being acquired without all the present day scheming and taking of private property? It just seems to me that this is an ace-in-the-hole legal tactic being played by those who can or cannot use it unto those who have little recourse.

Jon E. Papineau Jr.

Michigan City