The town of Perrysburg, Ohio, wants to use a “quick-take” procedure to condemn land on one side of a road so as to widen it and add a sidewalk or bike path. But some of the land is in adjoining Middleton Township, not in Perrysburg. Can they even do that? [Maggie Thurber, Watchdog]
8 Comments
Wouldn’t they need to annex it first?
“Execution first, trial later!” (with apology to Lewis Carroll).
We’re talking what, 30-40 feet? Let’s not go crazy.
30-40 feet of precedent can stretch a lot farther than that.
Am I mistaken in thinking that Los Angeles used the same technique to acquire sites like Mono Lake from which it obtains its water supply?
Yeah…..here in the Soviet of Washington, jurisdictions using condemnation proceedings outside their boundaries isn’t all that unusual. Examples include the City of Seattle Utilities and it’s Skagit River hydro project (back in the day), plus all the high tension transmission lines that run the 100+ miles from there into the city limits. There’s also the watersheds for the Cities of Seattle, Tacoma and Everett – all are up near the Cascade crest and well outside of the respective city limits.
Perhaps Ohio has a different law where this isn’t permissible.
Seems different, since the land is in another incorporated boundary – I don’t think the Cascade crest was.
Anybody think of simply buying it from the other city? Offer to pay for map changes, etc.
[…] “Ohio court says city can’t use ‘quick-take’ to seize property” [Watchdog, earlier on town of Perrysburg’s effort to seize property in adjoining Middleton […]