Anthony Coleman
The city wants land occupied by church parking spaces in order to complete a Roswell Street streetscape project.
Figures named in city documents dating back to May 2006 and by the church show the value of the land ranging from $73,000 to $2.1 million.
Before the public meetings, the mayor and Council went into a closed session to discuss an ongoing plan to widen Roswell Street between the Square and Cobb Parkway and its Nov. 14 vote to mediate with the church rather than consider eminent domain.
Tumlin said after the meetings the session will help the city prepare for a Dec. 10 mediation session with former Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Norman S. Fletcher.
“There are 15 to 20 different parts to it,” Tumlin said about the Nov. 26 meeting. “We analyzed our position and what we would like to have. The (city)attorney explained the mediation process to us. We just told staff that we want to verify what we want very pragmatically.”
The Dec. 10 meeting will follow an agenda, Tumlin said.
“We will meet here and then go into executive session. Justice Fletcher will meet with us and tell us what he likes about our argument and what he doesn’t like. Then he’ll talk to the church. Then you get together,” he said.
Tumlin said the presence of a mediator changes the dynamic of a dispute.
“The mediator brings in an element. You don’t look back. You look to resolve it. That’s the attitude we want,” he said.
However, there is some history on both sides, Tumlin said.
“There are so many moving parts. There’s been a lot of confusion over the 12 years. We’ve dealt with them on rezoning because they’ve had such phenomenal growth,” he said. “They’re frustrated that we changed the plan five times. From our point of view, that’s the nature of the beast. From their point of view, we’re wishy-washy.”
Both sides, Tumlin said, are “happy” to have Fletcher as an advocate.
“He will slap our wrists,” Tumlin said about keeping both sides in line.
Church Minister of Administration and Church Programming John Crooks confirmed Tumlin’s statement after the meeting.
“Justice Fletcher was chosen by both sides. He will do a fine job,” Crooks said.
Crooks said nothing has changed in the church’s position since the Nov. 14 City Council meeting.
“We are carefully putting our team together that will be at the mediation,” he said. “We’re just looking forward to Dec. 10.”
Councilman Anthony Coleman said before the meeting he thought the new course may be a viable alternative.
“If we skip over it and not impact their property, it will save them money and save us money,” he said. “It’s a good alternative. It doesn’t appraise for what they want. We won’t be taking 80 parking spaces. Let’s sit down and discuss and take a few jabs at it.”
Coleman said he took heat from constituents due to his status as a clergyman.
“That wouldn’t look good for you, a minister condemning a church,” he said about callers’ statements.
Coleman said he wanted to keep options open but be prepared for the worst.
“We want to do what’s right and fair for the church,” he said. “How do we find middle ground? If there’s no middle ground, let’s just leave it as it is.”
Tumlin said it was his idea to add an item to the public works committee meeting agenda regarding “less intrusive alternatives of Roswell Street streetscapes section near Victory Drive,” the church’s nearest intersection.
“Let’s keep it on the back burner. That way, if we have such an impasse on negotiation we might look at something else,” he said.
Councilman Jim King agreed.
“What if we left the median out? What would you have? You’d have the rest of Roswell Street. That’s a lot less real estate to take. It’s less costly,” he said. “Let’s be open to possibilities regardless of the outcome of mediation.”
Follow us on Twitter!
Let's just say I know you have an opinion and a point of view and I have an opinion and point of view. I would not wish to silence yours, even though they differ.
As a taxpayer, that is what you have elected officials for. Your involvement is distant, at best, and exists only remotely via your elected representatives and bureaucrats whom you have virtually no control. And there you go again, first trying to insert yourself into a property sale, and now trying to control how other people spend their time. If this controversy involved a mosque, the silence would be deafening, lest one be labeled by the left as a islamphobic.
Thanks from Foleyski, Polish etiquette monitor.
The government, be it city, county, state or federal, has this nifty little thing called eminent domain which is at their disposal any time they wish to use it. They have to pay the "damaged" party a reasonable and fair price for what they take, usually based on appraisals of the property being seized. The appraisal process, especially in a "special use" property, such as this, takes many factors into consideration. Much talk has been made of the parking spaces, which unfortunately do not mean as much to a special use property such as this, versus a commercial enterprise. The property seized at the commercial businesses along this road effectively put those businesses at a great disadvantage...i.e. out of business. This is quite simply not the case at RSBC. These spaces, while useful one day a week, do not prohibit the church from operating. And, the number of spaces being taken, would be minimal considering how many other spaces are available.
In addition, the reality is that the property the church owns, and is boardered by, is no longer commercially desirable as it may have been even a few short years ago. Commercial real-estate is in the tank and quite frankly, the neighborhood the church is in has gone downhill consistently for the last decade. It would be great for the city to figure out a way to do this without touching the church property and saving the taxpayers a few bucks, but if indeed they do decide they need the land, the church would be better off taking a fair offer rather than waiting for a generous offer.
Your logic is severely flawed in several ways, as well as your concept of private property rights and contractual law. RSBC is free to negotiate any sale which the two parties can agree upon. Your perceived evaluation of the surrounding neighborhood is irrelevant in the negotiations. What you consider a fair offer is also irrelevant, since you are neither the seller or buyer.
Your Christian prejudice is evident. RSBC has never once attempted to gouge the city, as you say. Please state why you believe RSBC is asking for special rights? That is simply not true. Your statement about taxes would suggest you are woefully untrained in the area of Constitutional law. Your logic again fails with the 47% remark. The land in question was bought and paid for by RSBC, thus giving them property rights like anyone else. The 47% Romney talked about are free loaders who have never paid for anything much less ever earned anything. Take a look at the Democrat party. They are a perfect example of the 47% who mooch off other people's earnings.
The City of Marietta will be very careful in any action they take on this issue.
In America, a seller if free to ask whatever they want. What direct involvement do you have in this matter between the two parties?
Use that money to make improvements elsewhwere along the corridor.
I suspect that the church will howl and call foul when they realize their much anticipated windfall is flying out the window.
What makes you think either party is not cooperating? It would appear you are not aware of the fact that both parties entered into voluntary arbitration. There was never any hint of RSBC expecting what you refer to as a windfall. RSBC was asking for what had already been determined to be a fair price. Your Christian prejudice is showing.
I suspect that the church's attorneys recommended this avenue to generate more fee's. After all it is a pot of taxpayer funds waiting to be tapped.
Again, just change the design of the road to eliminate any takings of property from the church.
As to your comment about my Christian prejudice
Kind of reminds me of when certain groups automatically cry racism, bigotry or prejudice when someone happens to oppose their point of view on an issue.
You advocate to deny RSBC basic rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and then you claim you have no prejudice? Please entertain us as to exactly how you define prejudice?
My logic is based on the fact that the church is not being economically harmed, to the extent that they claim, by the proposed taking.
In fact, they will benefit from the improvements being made along their frontage. Safer roadway and traffic movements, aesthetically more attractive, more pedestrian friendly etc.
Comparing the taking of their parking spaces to spaces that were taken from other businesses in the corridor is not a fair comparison.
Businesses use their parking spaces at least 6 days out of the week. The church, in most instances, uses its' parking spaces 1 day out of the week. So the economic impact of the taking should be adjusted accordingly.
Is the church legally entitled to be compensated under the laws governing a taking of property? Of course they are.
But it seems inconsistent for a tax exempt organization to try to take unfair advantage of that right, when on the other hand they readily accept the benefits of their tax exempt status.
Commonly known as "having your cake and eating it to."
Not prejudice, just my opinion.
And you find it surprising that churches do deal in money matters? Churches hold business meetings all the time, and the majority of topics they discuss are about money. RSBC no different from any other church.
I am suprised the Church isn't saying "if you want the lots by the road, you got to buy the WHOLE DANG PROPERTY off us since this 'hood is awful."
What you think is totally irrelevant. Like most things, the property is worth what the two parties involved agree upon for a selling price.