City condemns farmland

This story is the kind that wins elected officials dubious awards.

The city of Rogers, Arkansas, plans to condemn (“also known as ‘eminent domain‘”) five acres of farmland, not compensating the owner at all. Rogers wants to put a road through farmer Noland’s land. According to Noland’s attorney, the farmer has owned the property “since the earth cooled.”

The appraiser working for the city decided each acre is worth $100,000 (September 2006). The assumed value after Rogers adds utilities is $627,000 an acre. Therefore, the appraiser told the city they don’t have to pay the farmer: “This taking amount is negated by the increase in market value… and positively affects the subject property value after the taking.”

Eminent domain, from what I understand, occurs when the city believes the project in question raises the standard of living for residents. Do commercial shopping centers raise the standard of living? Rogers is already the commercial hub in Northwest Arkansas. Perhaps the city is more concerned with padding its coffers — which may (or may not) raise living standards in said city. And the measure of such standards are subjective anyway. Some people prefer parks to big box stores.

I understand in cases of eminent domain no value is placed on the owner’s sentimental attachments to their property. This is also subjective and cannot be determined by the justice system. However, the city of Rogers should still pay the man for his five acres. The appraiser is not clairvoyant. The value of the land is not guaranteed to rise. What happens if, after the city runs farmer Noland off of his five acres and builds their five-lane commercial paradise, the national and/or local economy tanks? What if the commercial real estate market in Northwest Arkansas suddenly becomes saturated, or developers decide to build on the other side of town?

Granted, these things are not probable. But they are possible.

Pay farmer Noland for his land.