Charges of "settlement under duress" cloud trail/nature sanctuary
deal
COLUMBIA, 7/22/11 (Beat Byte) -- Amidst
some of the more impassioned Columbia City Council presentations this
writer has heard in years, charges that City Hall was prepared to use eminent
domain to get a bike and walking trail through land owned by the Columbia Audubon
Society raised serious questions about a "compromise
agreement" Council members approved Monday night.
Settlements made under coercion or duress represent a legal, moral, and
ethical gray area. Some organizations even specify that agreements not
be reached under duress. The U.S. Department of Labor follows
such a guideline with workers compensation claims. A 2010 Alabama
appellate
case also addressed duress, this time in a divorce. In many
states, divorce settlements can be set aside if "duress or coercion" is proven.
The Audubon/trail agreement was designed to settle an unusual dispute
between Audubon Society members, who support a pristine nature sanctuary, and
pedestrian/bicycle enthusiasts who want a $980,000 trail through the 22 acre
property in West Columbia. Donated by local attorney Garland Russell, Jr. and
detailed on page 31 of this
presentation, the nature sanctuary abuts a larger 90-acre parcel
Russell's father, Garland Sr., donated in 1999.
For years, the two parcels have appeared as complimentary parts in a
coherent whole. The 90-acre Bonnie View parcel is nature with walking,
bicycling, and ADA accessibility. The smaller Audubon Society parcel
is pure nature.
The dispute has changed all that, pitting conservationists against trail
advocates in an almost Civil War-like "brother against brother" fashion.
Fear and loathing in Columbia
An opening
quote in a Missourian article sums up the settlement situation:
"Fueled by fear, members of the Columbia Audubon Society (CAS) made a deal in
order to protect their land as best they could."
The deal -- approved only by the Audubdon Society's
10-member board -- grants
permission for the trail with six caveats, including a prohibition
against dogs on the property and a mandate that the new trail destroy no
trees. The fear -- that City Hall might use eminent domain to
take land for the trail by force -- was first suggested by the group's
Columbia-based attorney, Craig van Matre.
"I think there are legal defenses that could prevent CAS from being forced to give up its land based on the City's use of eminent domain," van Matre wrote in a July 14 letter to Council and city staff members. "Their wish was that the trail stay off their property," he told Council members at Monday's meeting. "But as a result of me pushing them perhaps harder than they wished I had pushed them, um, they recognize that, um, they were in the long run better off with a compromise of this type...than one which might have been arbitrarily imposed on them through a condemnation process."
"I think there are legal defenses that could prevent CAS from being forced to give up its land based on the City's use of eminent domain," van Matre wrote in a July 14 letter to Council and city staff members. "Their wish was that the trail stay off their property," he told Council members at Monday's meeting. "But as a result of me pushing them perhaps harder than they wished I had pushed them, um, they recognize that, um, they were in the long run better off with a compromise of this type...than one which might have been arbitrarily imposed on them through a condemnation process."
Final implementation requires a full vote of Audubon Society members,
however, and if testimony at Monday's Council meeting is any guide, that
approval may be hard to secure.
Sister against sister
The dispute's "brother against brother" character was evident at Monday's
Council meeting when well-known community advocate and North Central Columbia
neighborhood association president Patricia
Fowler described a change of heart in the evening's most eloquent
presentation, followed by a stirring call from Kathleen
Weinschenk to make the area more accessible to people with
disabilities.
Fowler had "signed a petition on Earth Day to support the trail, having
never set foot on the land," she told Council members.
But after visiting the Audubon sanctuary July 4th with a
7-year old girl to watch
a bald eagle released back into the wild, Fowler found herself now
on the opposite side of "people I respect" including Pednet members and others
pushing for the new trail.
"I'm 52 years old, I've been to most of the zoos in this country, I watch
lots of films, I wasn't expecting much of anything," Fowler explained, her voice
often quivering. "And then Einstein the Eagle, who we all know had lead
poisoning, a man-made condition, after he was jostled out of his crate, took two
hops, spread his wings, and flew. I have never in my life seen anything
more impressive and majestic. The symbolism of July 4th was not lost
on me."
Openly wondering about the intrusiveness of a trail that would use concrete
for accessibility and encourage the kind of wheel and foot traffic that drives
most wildlife into hiding, Fowler asked, "Will we prevent something magnificent
from happening in front of an adult my age or a child to see?"
From her motorized wheelchair, Weinschenk spoke with equal passion about
what she called a "wonderful place."
"I know many people who would like to see [the sanctuary], but they can't
walk," Weinschenk told Council members. "So I would like to have a trail that
makes it possible for everyone to see it."
With few exceptions, the nearly 90 minutes of testimony that followed
opposed the trail on sanctuary land and condemned the eminent domain threat.
"I keep hearing the word 'compromise'," said Gary Simpson, who
lives adjacent to the sanctuary. "But a compromise with a gun held to
your head -- I don't think that's right."
Next Up: Who suggested eminent domain? And is this "deja view?"
No comments:
Post a Comment