CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
Multimedia News
Golf course files restraining order against Hampstead
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: Hampstead, Md.
The legal trouble erupted following a flurry of recent letters between Oakmont Green Golf Club and the town about when municipal employees would visit the property to survey and appraise the well.
The golf club said it wanted to set up a time to avoid disrupting previously scheduled golf games, but Hampstead Town Manager Ken Decker said municipal employees were allowed to come to the property without scheduling the visit with the owners.
“The town’s employees are not subject to … the Annotated Code of Maryland and have the right to enter upon public spaces of private property on official business without requesting permission or providing notice,” Decker wrote in a letter dated April 25 to Richard Titus, Oakmont’s attorney.
Leland Snyder, vice president of Oakmont Green Inc., said in a statement, “It is particularly frustrating that such condemnation is being pursued on an aggressive, fast-track approach by the town with what appears to be little regard for our rights as the private property owner.”
Decker could not immediately be reached for comment.
Hampstead Mayor Haven Shoemaker said he was hopeful that an “amicable resolution” would be attained.
“We’ve been searching for additional water for years, and we haven’t been successful. Water is a precious commodity,” said Shoemaker, who declined to comment any further on “active litigation.”
Municipalities throughout Carroll are struggling to comply with a new Maryland Department of the Environment mandate that towns have enough water to satisfy worst-case drought conditions.
kvolkmann@baltimoreexaminer.com
Comments from Examiner Readers
10:35 AM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008 re: "Economist says Baltimore development hurt city"
Report as inappropriate
1:01 PM MST on Sat., Mar. 1, 2008
re: "Governments' ability to seize property at stake on June ballot"
Report as inappropriate
10:37 AM MST on Sat., Mar. 1, 2008
re: "Governments' ability to seize property at stake on June ballot"
Report as inappropriate
3:33 AM MST on Fri., Aug. 3, 2007
re: "Alexandria sanitation agency to try seizing 10 acres after unsuccessful bid"
Report as inappropriate
11:13 AM MST on Fri., Jun. 29, 2007
re: "County moves forward with condemnation"
Report as inappropriate
11:32 AM MST on Wed., Jun. 27, 2007
re: "County moves forward with condemnation"
Report as inappropriate
12:21 PM MST on Thu., May. 31, 2007
re: "Judge extends restraining order in well takeover case"
Report as inappropriate
10:54 AM MST on Wed., May. 16, 2007
re: "Eminent domain questioned in city, county"
Report as inappropriate
10:00 AM MST on Wed., May. 16, 2007
re: "Evans mulls eminent domain against Boys and Girls Club branch"
Report as inappropriate
AMERICA CALLING said:
what he forgot to add is that baltimore or crime city that bleeds is a big factor
4 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I spent 22 years in SoCal, left in 2002 for VA. It was a great state, you could do almost anything there as long as you didnt bother anyone (including being gay etc). Crime was low, taxes etc were managable. Then came the liberal agenda and now its a one party state to include Arnold!. Then came the gun control, taxes on taxes and rules on rules. Gas is more than 4 dollars a gallon and you rent a million dollar shoe box to live in. Watch out Virginia, we are next...
69 agree | 62 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
True Story. I knew a man who owned a plumbing supply business in Burlingame. His next door neighbor, the SM County Mosquito Abatement District said they "needed" part of his land for its function. He said "no way." They seized it by E.D. claiming a public health "need." He was paid market price, of course, but lost half his land. Ever since, the mosquito abatement people used that extra land for,,,, washing personal vehicles, storing personal tow trailers and personal boats, and other personal no essential stuff. Once when I was visiting him, he told me to go next door and see what they were doing. I walked over and chatted with an employee. He was cleaning a small fish pond with goldfish in it. Moral of the story? THEY DIDN'T NEED THE LAND AS THEY SAID THEY DID. IT TURNED OUT TO BE EXCESS LAND FOR THEM.
78 agree | 62 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The county could put an easement on the property . That will make the owner unable to sell the property . Piece of cake. However, if the county wants to take the possession of the property, the county has to have at least 4 independent estimate, then average out to be fair to the owners.
163 agree | 183 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Absolutely positively the government has NO RIGHT to take our private property...under NO circumstances. We are begining the slide down the slippery slope of which we can never return. I am afraid this is only the beginning! Not surprising for Maryland.
178 agree | 157 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Jamie said:
Under what circumstances should the county condemn properties? In this case it's drugs and violence. But did the properties at Yorkway commit these crimes? Hardly. The county is leveling these apartments to make room for higher end homes/condos and pushing the crime somewhere else. So what is it again that we are trying to accomplish? The shifting of crime onto someone else. But where? Who cares. That's not our problem. What we want are better neighbors and a better value for our homes. But is the county making life better for us or our landlords? When will we begin to tackle the root cause of Yorkway? Maybe the new developers will have a great new way to deal with crime and drugs in our neighborhood. Something tells me, though, that this is not their problem. Which leads me back to my question.
169 agree | 162 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Only in America
173 agree | 160 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Cynical Citizen said:
What development is proposed for the Koo's property and in what condition is the property in? Seems notably absent from the article...
175 agree | 190 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
There is something seriously wrong with this statement. Has this man never heard of the United States Constitution? Evans "said he would seek to condemn the club and have the city take it under eminent domain if it chooses to sell to developers and fails to include some sort of comparable community organization. "
193 agree | 214 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree