Judge William Broadhurst ruled on Tuesday that land belonging to Jay and Stephanie Burkholder was properly condemned and seized by the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority on behalf of the City of Roanoke to later be sold to Carilion Clinic for use in creating its new Riverside Center.
The building which is leased to Surfaces, a local flooring provider, is located at 217 Reserve Avenue across from the old Victory Stadium parking area.
Carilion spokesperson Eric Ernhardt pointed out that while they continue to abide by their original agreement with the city to develop the property in the area, that they “were not a party to the court hearing.” He added that there was no particular designation ever made as to how any acquired property could be developed. “The original agreement allowed the property acquired to be developed by selling parts of it to a private developer as was done with the [Cambria Suites] Hotel now under construction, or it could be used for offices and physician practice facilities as has been done at the recently opened Riverside buildings.”
Carilion has indicated they have no plans for the three acre site except to use it to complete an internal road network that connects the various facilities within the Riverside complex.
Much of the basis for the ruling in the case came down to the Burkholder’s contention that the blight determination process by which the land was condemned was flawed and that improper conduct resulted in an incorrect determination by consultants who carried out that process for the city. But in his nine page opinion Judge Broadhurst ruled that, while the arguments put forth by the Burkholders’ lawyer Joe Waldo had merit and were substantiated by a variety of evidence, that the group responsible for determining the blighted designation, “were able to insolate themselves from any improper effect of that conduct.”
Jay and Stephanie Burkholder submitted the following statement to the Star-Sentinel shortly after the ruling:
“Judge Broadhurst’s decision was very disappointing. It is difficult to accept that a municipality can have this degree of power over an individual’s personal property. Understand, we are not greedy, and we are not obstructionists. The Riverside Project is by all accounts a great asset to the region.
Our contention is twofold: Firstly, the method. The Housing Authority used the veil of blight to encompass perfectly good properties that just happened to be within the area that Carilion wanted for its expansion. Evidence of this nature was presented in court and acknowledged in the Judge’s ruling. At the time, Virginia law allowed this to happen, the law has since been changed.
Secondly, the purpose. Although regrettable to those affected, eminent domain is justifiable in cases of roads and schools. Purposes that are genuinely for the public good are understandable. In this case however, property is being condemned and transferred to another private owner. How exactly does that constitute a public benefit?
We purchased that property in 1999 as an investment in our future. Our plan was to sell it to fund our retirement, ten or so years down the road. We are being required to sell it now. What if the city stepped in and required you to cash in your IRA ten years early? Again, were it a school we could swallow that pill. But for private development it is simply wrong.
There is considerable public discontent with the Kelo verdict. This may be Virginia’s opportunity to make it right, as we intend to appeal Judge Broadhurst’s decision.”
It is widely believed that such an appeal will provide a significant test to changes recently made to Virginia eminent domain law that came after the Kelo case, which allowed the government taking of land which was then gifted to a private developer for economic development purposes.
By Stuart Revercomb [email protected]
I heard on Channel 7 news that the Burkholders bought the property only shortly before the project was announced. Were they aware that the project was imminent? I think this issue is critical as to whether they are victims or opportunists.
Obviously a flooring company cannot remain inside a medical center complex.
Once the Carilion complex is complete, along with the new Cambria Suites the area needs businesses that compliment, rather than detract from the center.
For the public good this is the best long term approach for the City of Roanoke and its citizens. We must move forward folks!
I have always contended there was a connection of some sort between the Roanoke City Council and Carilion. This underlines that ideal. Why would any City favor one particular business over another? Even after that fact, when private citizens are affected, it should not be considered in the first place. This is a simple matter of right and wrong not having been considered in the first place. And when all this type of business is conducted what kind of City of Roanoke will you have?