Unfortunately, that’s how it works. In Southern California, after years of trying to negotiate with home owners from Norwalk out to Santa Monica, they started using eminent domain to obtain land to build the 105 freeway to create another access route to LAX. The plan was to extend the freeway out even further, but was stopped by other cities because they refused to use eminent domain to take land. Other cities around there did it as well to expand the freeway system down there.

If it’s within a “business need”, cities will use eminent domain.

2  2

I realize that the plan was originally to link the two with an under crossing, but I also question the timing, the motive, the redundancy of an already existing UC on Golf Course, the funding mechanisms, and the scope of the improvements. When crossing over the new Wilfred Ave overpass and looking westward, it’s obvious that the plan is for four lanes to punch through at some future date, although it now just blunts out and reduces to two lanes. Rohnert Park seems to have a litany of such conditions: The Expressway itself at both ends, Redwood Dr-Milbrae, and now, Wilfred. The city appears to have always had some grander vision of it’s carrying capacity than has come to pass. Had there not been a plan for the casino, responsible planning and logic would have dictated that at least the Expressway be brought to fruition and the properties along it developed first and foremost with an extension of the existing business district. With the casino’s projected revenue to the city, the timing is the suspect as to why such tremendous financial resources were committed to that one particular project on the timeline that they were. Wilfred Ave has existed in it’s horrible state of disrepair since well before the city was even incorporated, but now it’s priority #1. Secondarily, albeit not surprisingly, I also find it quite suspect that Rohnert Park’s priorities were the subject of a large part of the project costs of the 101 widening (was Wilfred critical to the functioning and benefit of the Sonoma County taxpayers as a whole?) Could it have been that Jake MacKenzie, aka: the Mayor of Rohnert Park, MTC commmissioner, SCTA commissioner, SMART Commissioner, wielded undo influence on how Measure M funding was allotted on behalf of what amounts to a project that he’s been instrumental in pushing through in the form of a casino project that benefits a very small and select group? Whether for or against the casino, per se, the real question is: why now, and with whose money is getting to it being facilitated?

12  1

But they did this 4 years after the tribe received federal approval of tribal status for the land. Except for a delaying action, the issue was settled.

RP simply played the hand they were dealt. Like it or not, a casino was coming.

4  5

5  6

I know that the Rohnert Park city council stuffed this down the throats of RP citizens and refused to let us have any say by way of a vote. Not sure how you can claim that RP didn’t plan or approve the casino; just ask the city how much payola they received over the last ten years. City officials even drove them around the city, looking for a casino site. Part of the deal was that the city would not challenge the building of the casino.

The city of RP was sold out for money today, money tomorrow, mainly for Public Safety officers and further guaranteeing their massive over-time pay, health benefits and retirement benefits.

Nothing about this casino was ever ‘for’ or ‘about’ the residents and citizens of Rohnert Park.

15  1

39  6

“Public-Private Partnerships”, eminent domain for private enterprize benefiting relatively few, taxes subsidizing private endeavors.

This is part of the anti-property rights ideology to which our local government has subscribed with their ICLEI membership.

The Casino will serve as another unaccountable funding mechanism, another black hole for our rogue government to oppress us with.

Eminent domain was never intended for this kind of application. Precedent was set with the Washington Bridge. Unavoidable, benefiting most all the residents. In one of these rare applications, the property owner should receive a premium as they have forfeited their unrealized future investment potential.

Wait ’till you see how many takings will accompany the Smart Train. Same cabal, same anti-private property ideology.

40  11

27  7

What qualifications do government “planners” have to have in order to dictate to private property owners and the public what we have to do?

I remember the part about being a government groupie and hanger on, but what were the ACADEMIC requirements?

20  11

I fully agree with you.

The government knew all along they planned on stealing private property to accomplish their government mission.

The worst part about it? The government now will pay rock bottom dollars to the property owners because they only have to pay market value.

YOUR government in action.

26  11

First, with the development that is taking place in this area (like it or not), the argument that the road does not need widening will not gain much traction. Second, eminent domain is not stealing land it is buying land – through a forced sale, yes, but it is still a purchase. The figures listed in the article for the offer on the Tesconi’s land work out to what would be just over $315K per acre. $315K per acre for any land in Sonoma County seems low to me but I don’t really know. Then again, by definition we are not talking about a buildable lot, we are talking about the strip that fronts the road – arguably the least valuable part of the property anyway.

11  32

Your duly elected representatives Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Boxer prodded the Feds to force this on Rohnert Park. Now, they’re just trying to make the best of a bad situation.

Personally, I’d leave the area a congested mess and point the figure at those responsible.

23  8

54  7