CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
California News
Multimedia News
Judge extends restraining order in well takeover case
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: Carroll County
Carroll County (Map, News) - A Carroll County Circuit Court judge extended a golf course’s restraining order against the town of Hampstead on Thursday in what local officials predicted is the first of many legal complaints that will be filed against municipalities attempting to use eminent domain to secure new water sources.
Judge Michael Galloway extended Oakmont Green Golf Club’s restraining order for 10 days to give Hampstead time to file its intent to appropriate one of the golf course’s two irrigation wells for the public water system.
A wave of correspondence between Oakmont and Town Manager Ken Decker about when municipal employees could visit the property to survey the well sparked the battle.
The golf course wanted prior notice to avoid disruption of pre-paid rounds of golf, said Oakmont’s lawyer, Richard Titus, but Decker wrote in a letter dated April 25 that town employees could enter without permission.
Galloway ruled that Hampstead must provide notice and extended the restraining order to give the town and the golf course time to work out a schedule for visits.
“Most people are not crazy about … [eminent domain] but when we’re talking about water, we’re talking about something that’s essential,” Galloway said. “The issue of adequate water supply is not one that just Carroll faces, but the state and nation.”
Oakmont Vice President Leland Snyder vowed to fight for his well.
“Buying my own water back is ridiculous,” he said. “I’ll be out of business.”
Carroll’s towns are working to comply with new Maryland Department of the Environment calculations that lowered how many gallons municipalities are allowed to pump from the ground.
Similar lawsuits “will be popping up all over,” said Decker, who described water as a public resource.
In July, Hampstead will determine whether it should enact a building moratorium until it finds more water.
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