How in the world did New York permit a transmission project to use eminent domain to take private property without adequate notice to and due process for affected landowners? According to this article, landowners who had been told that the Champlain Hudson Power Express transmission line would be buried entirely in Lake Champlain, the Hudson River, and transportation rights-of-way are now being threatened with eminent domain unless they allow burial of the project in their back yards. A local government official uses the word "blindsided" to describe recent efforts to get landowners to sign "voluntary" easements coerced by threats of eminent domain.
How did this company get eminent domain in the first place if it had agreements to use bodies of water and transportation rights-of-way? The company did not need eminent domain to acquire right-of-way that was already under contract.
It seems that TDI's original plan to stay completely in the river was tanked by environmental concerns on certain stretches of the river. Environmental interests prevailed, and the project was routed out of the river and over land in certain areas. However, local governments were told that the project would be routed completely along existing rail corridors.
How did this company get eminent domain in the first place if it had agreements to use bodies of water and transportation rights-of-way? The company did not need eminent domain to acquire right-of-way that was already under contract.
It seems that TDI's original plan to stay completely in the river was tanked by environmental concerns on certain stretches of the river. Environmental interests prevailed, and the project was routed out of the river and over land in certain areas. However, local governments were told that the project would be routed completely along existing rail corridors.
“Initially, the town was told it would be 100 percent by rail,” said Glenville Town Supervisor Chris Koetzle of what CHPE first said when they explained that part of the land-based section of line would go through his town.
But then TDI "discovered" there were utility equipment and other obstacles along the rail corridors that they had to avoid, requiring deviation from the rail corridor to find a route across private property. And what did TDI do then? Did it go back to regulators and explain itself? Did it contact the towns and notify them of the change? Did it meet with landowners to discuss its dilemma?
But over the last few months, [the town] started getting phone calls from residents of the Woodhaven neighborhood who were contacted by CHPE for easements.
Instead of doing the morally correct and honest thing and making this very important change public, the company put the squeeze on affected landowners and threatened them with eminent domain if they did not sign easements. How is this legally allowed?
Negotiations over the easements and the idea the land could be taken through eminent domain has some people contacting their lawyers.
“I’ve had a couple of people call me,” said Patrick Seely a lawyer with the Jones Hacker Murphy firm in Troy. He hasn’t actually been retained, but noted that in easement cases, there is often a negotiation. “A little bit of horse trading goes on all the time,” he said.
But those landowners in easement cases would have been notified that their property was needed for the project way back in the project permitting stage. Once notified, the landowner would have had the option to participate in the permitting case and appeal any decision they did not agree with. These late-to-the-game landowners have been stripped of due process. They absolutely should contact a lawyer, but not one who only sees their case as a way to cash in by negotiating easement agreements, instead of questioning whether the landowner received proper legal notice of the project in the first place.
And they might want to find out whether this was an honest mistake for which there was no other remedy than eminent domain and routing across private property, or was this done as a result of carelessness? If the original plan to stay in the river wasn't stopped by environmental concerns, would any of this be happening? What did the company know about obstructions to a rail route when it decided to put it there? Might routing on road shoulders or a combination of road and rail have been a better choice? Seems very odd that there were no options for route planning. Is the company just losing its patience and calling it "good enough" in order to stop the financial bleeding a lack of proper planning from the beginning has caused?
Maybe TDI shouldn't have spent so much money showering local governments and environmental interests with cash in exchange for support for its project. And maybe local governments shouldn't have accepted TDI's dirty money before the project's route was confirmed. A good lesson in payoffs all around.
But what about those landowners? A solution must be found, and it can't be eminent domain. This project got so close to getting done without creating involuntary victims. And now it seems to have simply given up.
Disappointing. I hope the next company that attempts to site a transmission project buried underwater and on existing rights-of-way can stay the course to success. Meanwhile, landowners near TDI's other transmission project, New England Clean Power Link in Vermont should beware. Looks like TDI has already paid for the support it thinks it needs for that project. Is eminent domain on private property next?
And they might want to find out whether this was an honest mistake for which there was no other remedy than eminent domain and routing across private property, or was this done as a result of carelessness? If the original plan to stay in the river wasn't stopped by environmental concerns, would any of this be happening? What did the company know about obstructions to a rail route when it decided to put it there? Might routing on road shoulders or a combination of road and rail have been a better choice? Seems very odd that there were no options for route planning. Is the company just losing its patience and calling it "good enough" in order to stop the financial bleeding a lack of proper planning from the beginning has caused?
Maybe TDI shouldn't have spent so much money showering local governments and environmental interests with cash in exchange for support for its project. And maybe local governments shouldn't have accepted TDI's dirty money before the project's route was confirmed. A good lesson in payoffs all around.
But what about those landowners? A solution must be found, and it can't be eminent domain. This project got so close to getting done without creating involuntary victims. And now it seems to have simply given up.
Disappointing. I hope the next company that attempts to site a transmission project buried underwater and on existing rights-of-way can stay the course to success. Meanwhile, landowners near TDI's other transmission project, New England Clean Power Link in Vermont should beware. Looks like TDI has already paid for the support it thinks it needs for that project. Is eminent domain on private property next?
RSS Feed