Three Landowners Reject Madison Bike Trail Bid

Last updated on 2011.03.13

Eminent Domain Imminent?

The proposed Lake Herman recreation trail returns to the Madison City Commission agenda tonight. According to the March 3 minutes of Madison's recreation trail committee (included in tonight's agenda packet), whatever money the city has offered was not enough for three landowners:

The Committee discussed the overall status of the Recreation Trail to Lake Herman right-of-way (ROW) acquisition project given objections from three landowners who rejected the original written ROW acquisition monetary offer. The Committee's [sic] discussed abandoning the project briefly but opted not to move in that direction.

The committee conducted a full and considerable discussion of numerous alternatives and adjustments from original ROW acquisition and trail placement proposal. Alternatives discussed included but were not limited to avoiding any permanent ROW acquisition, narrowing the trail width from 10 feet to 8 feet, placing the trail on shoulder of the roadway or on the roadway inslope by shaping a narrow ditch, and only pursuing a temporary construction easement.

The original ROW acquisition proposal included acquiring additional ROW width so as to provide a 50 foot width from the scetion line, which is generally the center of the road, to the proposed permanent easement width. THe original trail placement proposal included placing the trail approximately 7 feet from the proposed newly acquired 50 foot width. An additional 10 foot temporary construction easement was also proposed.

The existing ROW width is 41.25 feet along Highland Avenue (west side) and 33 feet along County Road 38 (south side).

After full discussion and consideration of the opposing landowner's objections and because of the safety, drainage, maintenance, and other concerns about the possible alternatives discussed, motion by Bohl to recommend that the City Commission and staff proceed with the original ROW acquisition porposal with the willing landowner's [sic?] parcels and that the City Commission and staff proceed with the original ROW acquisition proposal and take the actions to further the processes of acquisitions for the unwilling landowners including but not limited to securing appraisals, legal services agreements, and other required items. Seconded by Lammers. Motion carried with Abraham opposed [Madison recreation trail committee minutes, March 3, 2011, as published in the city commission agenda packet, March 14, 2011].

The offer the city signaled last spring apparently wasn't enough for some of my neighbors across the lake. Proceeding with the original plan, over the objection of these landowners, means one of two things: either the city is going to offer more money, or the city will try eminent domain.

I am alarmed that Commissioner Abraham is the only member of the rec trail committee who sees a problem with continuing with the original plan. Committee members Bohl, Lammers, Jeff Rud, Mike Waldner, Heath VonEye, Ted LaFleur, and Chad Comes appear to think that the opposition of three landowners warrants no alteration of the plan to accommodate those landowners' concerns and perhaps encourage them to become willing participants.

Is the city's trail vision turning to tunnel vision? Are the alternatives discussed really so problematic that it is preferable to proceed with acquisition for the original plan against the landowners' wishes?

The rec trail committee minutes are on the acknowledgements portion of the agenda, not new business, so the commission may not discuss or take action on that next step.

Continuing negotiations with the landowners to find a good solution for all parties is fine. But many readers here object to taking land by eminent domain for a recreation trail. While I might be persuaded to the contrary, I remain opposed to eminent domain for the Lake Herman trail as well. Much as I might want a Lake Herman trail, I cannot yet argue that the community needs one.