By Dave Fidlin
Correspondent
Citing a lack of information at a prior meeting, the East Troy Village Board this week rescinded a previous motion concerning the use of eminent domain for three landlocked parcels in the community.
Prior to engaging in a robust discussion, Village President Randy Timms on Feb. 6 swiftly asked his elected colleagues to reverse the actions taken Jan. 23 concerning the use of eminent domain to allow property access on the Brooks Court parcels.
The heart of the discussion centers on land owned by village property owner Mary Pulliam.
Village Administrator Eileen Suhm laid out a seven-item list of reasons why the board should reverse course and not seek eminent domain to address the issue.
“The thing I want to remind everyone is this is a unique situation,” Suhm said at this week’s meeting. “Unfortunately, I think this led to some miscommunication and some misinformation.”
Eminent domain, by definition, gives governing bodies the authority to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation.
The board at its Jan. 23 meeting had been looking at what steps it could and should take concerning the combination of three parcels on Brooks Court so the land can be sold.
In the weeks since, Suhm pointed to a number of new developments that were not divulged when the board first handed down its motion. One of the important provisions points to state statutes.
“We became aware that although eminent domain can be used to obtain private property and turn it over to an individual property owner, it would need to be blighted property,” Suhm wrote in a memo.
While the blight provision eliminated eminent domain as an option, a series of more granular developments in recent weeks have prompted village officials to back off on making any decisions on the future of the property for the time being.
Suhm in her memo said she learned, after the Jan. 23 meeting, that two lot owners within the area of scrutiny had engaged in a potential land purchase discussion. An offer and counteroffer have reportedly been exchanged, though a deal has not yet been struck.
“Regardless, I regret that he (the land owner initiated the possible purchase), along with the other property owners, had not been notified of the (Jan. 23) meeting,” Suhm wrote in her memo. Residents within the area were notified of the Feb. 6 meeting, and several did attend it.
Because of the possibly pending lot transaction, board members refrained from making any formal decisions concerning the combination of the parcels. As part of their motion, the board agreed to table the issue until March 6.
The board’s motion of using eminent domain last month came after a narrow, 4-3 vote, during an already contentious meeting that spanned more than three hours.
During this week’s revisit of the issue, several board members expressed frustration and asserted they were misled as they handed down their decisions two weeks ago.
“I’m not happy,” said Trustee Ann Zess, who voted against the eminent domain proposal Jan. 23. “There’s been a lot of misinformation floating around.”
Trustee Matt Johnson, who voted in favor of using eminent domain, offered a similar sentiment this week.
“I feel the board was manipulated to solve a private dispute,” Johnson said. “I want to be careful in how we proceed with this.”
