While local governments wring their hands over the possibility that the property rights amendment heading for the November ballot will prevent them from holding parades, or engaging in SWAT raids, their complaints amount to nothing compared to the trials of farmer Edd Jennings. As this Roanoke Times piece notes, Jennings’ family farm along the New River has been been the object of eminent domain proceedings “at least 10 times.”
The most frequent condemnor has been VDOT. And their most recent land grab was the object of a seven year-long lawsuit that recently settled:
Ever since an interstate spanning the New River was built in the 1970s, Jennings has put up with the noise from traffic passing more than 100 feet above, vibrations that rattle his Victorian farmhouse and litter thrown from vehicles that rains down on his yard.
To build the interstate and bridge, the state invoked its power of eminent domain, which allows it to use private land for a public purpose. Under the process, the Jennings family was forced to sell the land at a price dictated by the state.
In 2002, VDOT returned to the Jennings farm to expand the bridge. In a lawsuit filed in 2005, Jennings claimed the project left a large mound of construction debris, covered by earth, in a spot under the bridge that deprived him access to his own land.
The lawsuit also alleged that storm water runoff from the expanded bridge carved ditches on Jennings’ property 6 to 15 inches deep.
Last July, Wythe County Circuit Judge Joey Showalter ruled in Jennings’ favor, finding that the work by VDOT “adversely affects the landowner’s ability to exercise a right connected to the property.”
While a victory for Jennings, the ruling did not end the case.
The next step, which had been scheduled for June, was for a special jury composed of Wythe County landowners to determine how much the state should pay Jennings. The recent settlement, which came after a mediation session, eliminates the need for that proceeding.
Jennings would have received nothing had he not filed suit against VDOT.
For those who say the property rights amendment is unnecessary, ill-considered or possibly fraught with unintended consequences, I suggest they ask Edd Jennings about his experience with the condemnors and their repeated takings of his land, time, and money.
