Question: Why didn’t Marshall Purchase

[bbneutralfan]

The property immediately adjacent to the IPF facing 5th Avenue? Another bank being built there. Are you kidding - another bank. Why didn’t the university use eminent domain and acquire that piece of property for much needed parking close to the stadium.

 

[ru4_mu2]

The property immediately adjacent to the IPF facing 5th Avenue? Another bank being built there. Are you kidding - another bank. Why didn’t the university use eminent domain and acquire that piece of property for much needed parking close to the stadium.

Good question. The old pizza hut location. I've heard that the banker opening the new bank owns the property. Not sure if that's accurate or not.

 

[i am herdman]

The property immediately adjacent to the IPF facing 5th Avenue? Another bank being built there. Are you kidding - another bank. Why didn’t the university use eminent domain and acquire that piece of property for much needed parking close to the stadium.

I am not a big fan of eminent domain unless it is for a very good reason. I mean a very good reason. A parking lot? Not so sure about that.

 

[bbneutralfan]

Well if you have reserved parking on the west lot or another location good for you. Home game parking - even with the poorly attended games the past few years - puts parking near the stadium at a priority IMO and yes I believe Marshall should have eminent domained that property. Once the bank (can’t believe another bank) is built acquiring that property will be a huge expense. I guess it’s just me but I believe it’s a mistake. Also you still cannot clearly see the Chris Cline Complex from 5th Avenue - excluding the roof on the IPF.

 

[sluggo72]

Good question. The old pizza hut location. I've heard that the banker opening the new bank owns the property. Not sure if that's accurate or not.

and I've heard that said bank has been in negotiations for over a year to buy the property. Seller always thought it was worth more.

 

[raleighherdfan]

The property immediately adjacent to the IPF facing 5th Avenue? Another bank being built there. Are you kidding - another bank. Why didn’t the university use eminent domain and acquire that piece of property for much needed parking close to the stadium.

eminent domain for a parking lot. Hmmm. Just what is needed in a town... that is gradually turning into a parking lot.

 

[i am herdman]

eminent domain for a parking lot. Hmmm. Just what is needed in a town... that is gradually turning into a parking lot.

But it would be used 6 times a year for 8 hours.

 

[TwolfHerdfan]

Isn't Geoff Sheils the guy behind the new bank going in? He's a big MU supporter I think.

 

[herdfan06]

Isn't Geoff Sheils the guy behind the new bank going in? He's a big MU supporter I think.

Someone will likely chime in and say he must not love Marshall that much, otherwise he would have donated it so @bbneutralfan could see the IPF from 5th Ave.

 

[riflearm2]

Home game parking - even with the poorly attended games the past few years - puts parking near the stadium at a priority IMO and yes I believe Marshall should have eminent domained that property.

"Public use" in the Fifth Amendment has been allowed a pretty broad interpretation. One eminent domain example allowed a private mall to be developed while wiping out about 100 houses. The argument was that the mall would create substantial jobs and tax revenue. It, rightfully so, was a very controversial use of eminent domain.

Using it for a parking lot so that a couple of hundred cars can park closer to a college football stadium? That shouldn't and probably wouldn't fly. Government entities simply can't pick-and-choose what property they want and claim eminent domain.

 

[oldeherd]

If they didn't use it to buy the old Glazer Furniture Store property on 3rd for possible expansion of the HC or possibly as a site for a basketball practice facility, then, no, doubt if they would try the eminent domain tactic for parking purposes, as others have said. Remember all the public S-T-I-N-K that the former Glaser owner made when the late President Kopp, IIRC, hinted at using the eminent domain route.

If MU needs more parking all that badly, why not demolish the abandoned church along 5th Avenue right beside the West Lot? Property that MU already has purchased!

 

[HerdFan73]

Well if you have reserved parking on the west lot or another location good for you. Home game parking - even with the poorly attended games the past few years - puts parking near the stadium at a priority IMO and yes I believe Marshall should have eminent domained that property. Once the bank (can’t believe another bank) is built acquiring that property will be a huge expense. I guess it’s just me but I believe it’s a mistake. Also you still cannot clearly see the Chris Cline Complex from 5th Avenue - excluding the roof on the IPF.

I don’t think there could be be many programs of our stature with a better parking situation than we have.

In the roughly 15 years I’ve been driving myself to MU games, I don’t know that I’ve ever paid more than $10-$15 for a basic parking spot and walked more than 2 blocks.

 

[Herdmeister]

Isn't Geoff Sheils the guy behind the new bank going in? He's a big MU supporter I think.

Yes, he is. The bank was going there to open a presence in Huntington. In the meantime they have purchased another bank chain, MVB with 2 Huntington and 2 Barboursville locations and will delay construction on the old Pizza Hut site

 

[TwolfHerdfan]

Hell, there are whole blocks in Huntington I would love to level. Could only help.

 

[sluggo72]

Yes, he is. The bank was going there to open a presence in Huntington. In the meantime they have purchased another bank chain, MVB with 2 Huntington and 2 Barboursville locations and will delay construction on the old Pizza Hut site

well they just leveled both buildings. Perhaps their goal is to make a parking lot so the bank people can tailgate on game days!!

 

[bbneutralfan]

eminent domain for a parking lot. Hmmm. Just what is needed in a town... that is gradually turning into a parking lot.

Duh Raleigh adjacent to stadium - hell yes a parking lot is needed.

 

[ru4_mu2]

Duh Raleigh adjacent to stadium - hell yes a parking lot is needed.

What lot do you currently tailgate in?

 

[bbneutralfan]

What lot do you currently tailgate in?

Purchase parking on the McDonalds lot directly behind the stadium.

 

[bbneutralfan]

Purchase parking on the McDonalds lot directly behind the stadium.

And no tailgating permitted.

 

[MStap]

Summit Bank purchased the property with plans to construct a building, however, the recently acquired MVB and now plan to operate out of the building on 4th ave. They are stilling going to tear down the buildings on the lot beside the stadium, but the construction plans are on hold.

MVB Bank selling four banking centers to Summit Community Bank

MVB Bank announced Friday the signing of a definitive agreement under which Summit Community Bank, a subsidiary of Summit Financial Group, will acquire all of MVB Bank’s southern West Virginia

www.herald-dispatch.com

 

[Herdmeister]

well they just leveled both buildings. Perhaps their goal is to make a parking lot so the bank people can tailgate on game days!!

they also leveled 2 homes between the Pizza Hut building and the stadium as well.

 

[bbneutralfan]

Someone will likely chime in and say he must not love Marshall that much, otherwise he would have donated it so @bbneutralfan could see the IPF from 5th Ave.

And probably park closer to the stadium then you.

 

[herdfan06]

And probably park closer to the stadium then you.

Then I what?

 

[Rock98Dog]

Why the discussion on eminent domain? The property was for sale, no need for it. Eminent domain is for when someone doesn’t want to sell.

 

[riflearm2]

Why the discussion on eminent domain? The property was for sale, no need for it. Eminent domain is for when someone doesn’t want to sell.

That's not true. There is no relevance if the property is up for sale or not. Based on your argument, somebody who doesn't want to be the subject of eminent domain could put their property on the market for $10 million over "just compensation" and avoid the government possession.

Eminent domain isn't just for when someone doesn't want to sell. It is also for when somebody wants to sell but can't agree on the just compensation with the government offer.

 

[Rock98Dog]

That's not true. There is no relevance if the property is up for sale or not. Based on your argument, somebody who doesn't want to be the subject of eminent domain could put their property on the market for $10 million over "just compensation" and avoid the government possession.

Eminent domain isn't just for when someone doesn't want to sell. It is also for when somebody wants to sell but can't agree on the just compensation with the government offer.

Yeah, I know that, but the fact that the property sold in an arms length transaction indicates that the property was not being offered for sale at a non-negotiable, above market rate. Summit Bank paid $900,000 for the 5 parcels they bought, The old Burger King site sold for $1,300,000 last year. The two sites are about the same size, 30,000 sf versus 27,800 sf. Down past 26th street they built a new car wash, 37,850 sf and they paid $600,000, but an inferior location.

 

[riflearm2]

Yeah, I know that, but the fact that the property sold in an arms length transaction indicates that the property was not being offered for sale at a non-negotiable, above market rate. Summit Bank paid $900,000 for the 5 parcels they bought, The old Burger King site sold for $1,300,000 last year. The two sites are about the same size, 30,000 sf versus 27,800 sf. Down past 26th street they built a new car wash, 37,850 sf and they paid $600,000, but an inferior location.

That has nothing to do with you saying "the property was for sale, no need for it [eminent domain]." As we both agree, at least now, property being for sale doesn't mean eminent domain is not needed.

 

[Rock98Dog]

What it means is that there is no need for an eminent domain discussion, which is why I said there was no need for an eminent domain discussion. To have that discussion about a property that is already sold is ridiculous. You have to assume that Marshall even wanted the property, that the seller wasn’t offering the property at a reasonable market price to Marshall, and that no one else was willing to purchase the property at the price being asked.

Since the property has sold, those assumptions can’t be made because at least one of them has been proven false already. You had a willing seller who sold the property for a market price. A person asking $10MM for a property with a market value of $900,000 is someone who doesn’t want to sell, so I stick with my original assertion.

 

[19MU88]

What it means is that there is no need for an eminent domain discussion, which is why I said there was no need for an eminent domain discussion. To have that discussion about a property that is already sold is ridiculous. You have to assume that Marshall even wanted the property, that the seller wasn’t offering the property at a reasonable market price to Marshall, and that no one else was willing to purchase the property at the price being asked.

Since the property has sold, those assumptions can’t be made because at least one of them has been proven false already. You had a willing seller who sold the property for a market price. A person asking $10MM for a property with a market value of $900,000 is someone who doesn’t want to sell, so I stick with my original assertion.

very well stated and correct.

 

[riflearm2]

Since the property has sold, those assumptions can’t be made because at least one of them has been proven false already. You had a willing seller who sold the property for a market price. A person asking $10MM for a property with a market value of $900,000 is someone who doesn’t want to sell, so I stick with my original assertion.

And that’s all fine, but that’s not what you originally said. To remind you, the entirety of your first post consisted of:

“Why the discussion on eminent domain? The property was for sale, no need for it. Eminent domain is for when someone doesn’t want to sell.”

That’s wrong on two accounts, as I have pointed out. First, just because a property is for sale doesn’t mean eminent domain is not needed. Second, just because somebody wants to sell doesn’t mean eminent domain is not needed.

There was an article published yesterday about a guy in Coral Gables who held out selling his house since $1 million wasn’t enough. So the town allowed a huge development to be built encircling his small land. It wasn’t that he necessarily didn’t want to sell; he just didn’t think it was worth only $1 million. The same thing happened to a guy directly across the street from my old condo on Massachusetts Avenue NW in DC. It wasn’t that he didn’t want to sell. He just held out thinking they’d end up giving him more.

Why is it so hard for you to simply say “yeah, I over generalized in my first post to the extent that it was wrong. As a result, I had to clarify in far more detail what I intended to say”?

 

[19MU88]

And that’s all fine, but that’s not what you originally said. To remind you, the entirety of your first post consisted of:

“Why the discussion on eminent domain? The property was for sale, no need for it. Eminent domain is for when someone doesn’t want to sell.”

That’s wrong on two accounts, as I have pointed out. First, just because a property is for sale doesn’t mean eminent domain is not needed. Second, just because somebody wants to sell doesn’t mean eminent domain is not needed.

There was an article published yesterday about a guy in Coral Gables who held out selling his house since $1 million wasn’t enough. So the town allowed a huge development to be built encircling his small land. It wasn’t that he necessarily didn’t want to sell; he just didn’t think it was worth only $1 million. The same thing happened to a guy directly across the street from my old condo on Massachusetts Avenue NW in DC. It wasn’t that he didn’t want to sell. He just held out thinking they’d end up giving him more.

Why is it so hard for you to simply say “yeah, I over generalized in my first post to the extent that it was wrong. As a result, I had to clarify in far more detail what I intended to say”?

What part of - "no need for discussion on eminent domain" - did you not understand?

 

[riflearm2]

What part of - "no need for discussion on eminent domain" - did you not understand?

Child, have somebody with at least a middle school level of intelligence explain it to you if my dumbing down still isn't easy enough for you.

His comment of "no need for discussion on eminent domain" referred to the property being on the market. Being on the market doesn't alleviate the need for eminent domain. I've given multiple examples of why his over generalization was false.

 

[19MU88]

You are still discussing it. maybe we can add a remedial message board here for you.