The original post, by my husband Johnathan, can be found at http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977820449. This is the response by the mayor of Mishawaka, Jeff Rea. Look for Johnathan's rebuttal next week.
"Jonathan,
"I have read with interest your recent internet posts and emails about the City of Mishawaka and me personally. As I have come to know and expect from you, it is filled with very little truth or accuracy. I know that doesn’t really matter to you so I am not sure why I expend the effort, but I do think it is important you understand some facts as it relates to your claims.
- The City of Mishawaka did not purchase a single property in association with the expansion of the AM General H2 Plant. The factory is 100% outside of the City limits, and all acquisition was done by St. Joseph County and AM General, not by the City of Mishawaka . The plant remains outside of the City of Mishawaka.
- The company from China is looking to buy the Hummer name, not the local plant. The local plant, AM General, only produces vehicles under the Hummer brand name for General Motors. In a sense, they have a contract to make vehicles for GM. I know of no discussions of the possible sale of the AM General plant.
- I think you have misinterpreted the Edgewater comments. If you listened to the whole conversation, which I know you rarely do, when asked I simply said the final decision on the construction of the Riverwalk rested with this office. Not one time at the Edgewater meeting did we talk about taking the Edgewater owners land. Our conversations were all about utilizing the existing right-of-way. I also indicated that likely we would never go along the south bank, as there is a high concentration of homes there, but that the north side was more logical because we already had public right-of-way.
- When you talk about the offer you made, I think your portrayal is also inaccurate. The Indiana Code lays out procedures by which governmental units can buy property. As the Mayor of the City, I believe we have a responsibility to follow the Indiana Law, it would be irresponsible not to. The law suggests that we hire two independent appraisers, licensed by the State of Indiana , have them perform appraisals, and make an offer based on the average of those two appraisals. That is what we did and that is where our offer came from. There are not provisions in the law to allow me to absolve your household debt. We were unable to reach an agreement, so we indicated that we would no longer pursue purchase of the property. We have articulated that on a number of occasions, explained why, but you don’t seem satisfied.
- You talk in your article about eminent domain. In Mishawaka , it has only ever been used as a last resort. Since I have been with the City, 15 years, only once has the City of Mishawaka used eminent domain. That was for the acquisition of the liquor store at Main/Jefferson for part of the Main Street Underpass Project. I believe in that case even, a settlement was reached prior to the actual court hearing. We don’t like to be at odds with our citizens, we try very hard to work with them. We recognize that they have made significant investments in the property they own. That being said, we also believe it is irresponsible to overpay for property, as we are utilizing tax dollars for the purchase. Our track record speaks for itself, and I believe you would be hard pressed to find one property owner that didn’t feel like they got a fair deal from the City of Mishawaka . Close to 100% of the properties we have purchased came to an agreement, I believe that is a pretty good record.
- I think you are pretty far off on your theories that we would randomly go into a neighborhood to build a ski-slope. Your perception of our financial wherewithal is a little off base. These are difficult times for government units and we know that the pot of funds is not unlimited. We are unable to fund all of our daily needs, let alone go in an ruin a well established neighborhood by buying it all. As I have come to expect from you, you have a lot of far out conspiracy theories.
- I am not sure why you still feel so threatened Jonathan. I have indicated, we are not going to purchase your property for the riverwalk. I don’t know how much clearer I can get than that. Though we have desire to extend the Riverwalk east, we will seek other alternatives as we understand from you that your property is not available. I will respect that.
"Jonathan, I do wish you luck in whatever it is you want to pursue. At the end of the day, I am very proud of how we do our business here and the people we have here doing that business. We have been honest, up front, and frank. We haven’t played any games. We have followed the law. We believe we have acted in the best interest of our taxpayers. Part of the beauty of this country is you certainly have the right to disagree with that. I think however, given all of the facts, a lot of people with concur with what I have said. It has been a great honor to serve in this position. It is a responsibility I take very seriously. Every day I try to do my very best, and I ask the same of our employees."
Mayor Jeff Rea
City of Mishawaka
600 East Third Street, P.O. Box 363
Mishawaka, IN 46546-0363
(574)258-1601
(574)258-1776 fax
jrea@mishawakacity.com


Comments: 16
So-o-o-o-o... no highways? no parks?
This whole line of argument is a leetle strange. If you agree that eminent domain is constitutional, you perforce agree that it is fully American. After all, it's the American Constitution we're discussing, no?
If that is socialist so is everything people do short of robbing and killing each other ... so is everyone voting for their leaders. This socialist crap is really overused.
I cannot comment on the merits or demerits of your particular situation but you should be justly compensated for your property and trouble. As John S. mentions below there are some cases in dispute, but if it were my city I would probably feel the same as you feel. It depended on what my options were and what I ended up with I guess.
If I was looking at my city and trying to make more parkland by joining two parks I would be for it because I put a lot of important on parks and the environment. Right now we have the exact opposite a bunch of really rich people taking what used to be unused land and building huge homes on it and driving the wildlife away or into the city where it causes problems.
Good luck.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
Until recently, private property could only be taken for "public" works such as roads or schools etc.; in other words to "BE" public property (eminent domain).
Now however, the courts have ruled that private property can be taken under eminent domain by a city, and then turned around and sold to another "private person/company" to develop! The supporting argument that if it increases the "tax base" it is good for the "public." That had not been the case for over 200 years! The Supreme Court has re-interpreted what out founding fathers had in mind a couple of years ago... twisted it, if you ask me. I think it wrong....
Isn't that how the system is meant to work?