ANN ARBOR SEEKING RIGHT OF WAY FOR LYNANNE-ARBANA SEWER PROJECT

Ann Arbor is seeking grants of new easements in an area north of Dexter Avenue and West Huron Street, between Lyn Anne Court and Arbana Drive.

The City is initiating the process of obtaining right of way for LynAnne-Arbana Sewer Project. Project information can be found here. A map of the project is partially reproduced below and also available on the City’s website.

The City recently mailed letters to property owners.  Those letters are not good-faith offers and do not comply with MCL 213.55.  They do not make an offer of just compensation, do not include the proposed easement document, and are not addressed to all the owners of the properties, as defined by MCL 213.51 and required by MCL 213.55.  Rather, the letters ask property owners to contact a “neutral third-party facilitator to support discussions.”

It appears that the City is seeking new, expanded permanent easements as well as temporary easements.  The City is not publicizing the easement form, although they are rather presumptuously inviting property owners to “receive the applicable easement documentation for your review and signature as soon as it is available.”  The City makes no mention of paying just compensation.

Pipeline easements can result in significant diminutions in the value of property, particularly if they involve clear cutting of trees or above-ground structures to be constructed. I have no opinion about the “neutral third-party facilitator” as I am not familiar with him or his company, but I have run into right of way agents that do not tell property owners about the rights that they enjoy. This blog post and this other post detail some of their chicanery. This post discusses a bait and switch that I observed in good faith offer appraisals. 

This post summarizes some key issues that must be evaluated when a pipeline is taken. 

If you have received one of the City’s letters and are interested in talking about it, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Previous
Previous

COURT OF APPEALS UPHOLDS BROAD ATTORNEY FEE REIMBURSEMENT AFTER SUCCESSFUL CHALLENGES

Next
Next

MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO RESTRICT INVERSE CONDEMNATION IN FLINT WATER CASE