The Village of Ellenville’s attempt through eminent domain to expand Resnick Park has raised some eyebrows locally, and has caused a visceral sense of uneasiness about the use of a legal procedure many here are uncomfortable with. In America, property rights are nearly as revered as the right to own a gun, so serious questions are raised whenever those rights are taken away, especially by an entity that is also responsible for protecting them. To use this tool - the municipal equivalent of "going nuclear" - the reasons to use it have to be in line with the momentous act of taking away someone’s land. It is hard to see how expanding an underused park has the necessary urgency required for such a drastic measure.

The actions of the Village could be considered insensitive because they ignore the region’s distinctly painful history with eminent domain. When the Rondout Reservoir was completed in 1954, the communities of Lackawack, Montela, and Eureka were entirely displaced, and hundreds of families, most against their will, were forced by eminent domain to relocate. Many other properties lost their prime, river bottom fields and pastures, and were left with nothing but rocky hillsides to farm. Even fifty years later, resentment persists in the hills surrounding the reservoir over what continues to be called “The Taking.” Nevertheless, construction of a reservoir for a growing city of millions seems on a par with the severity of taking people’s land from them, even if it does create generations of anger and resentment. The situation in the Village is hardly comparable.

Now it is true the Village once owned the property, and claims to have mistakenly transferred title to the land in question to Tadasuke Kuwayama, the current owner. Does this mistake somehow make using the power of eminent domain less serious? Consider the situation if Mr. Kuwayama had not bought the property from the Village. Suppose instead he had owned the land for decades, and the Village one day decided it wanted a piece of his land to expand a small park. Is that an acceptable use of eminent domain? Only if the Village is seeking to breed mistrust within its business community as well as the art community to which it hopes to endear itself.

So the key to the Village’s argument seems to be that they made a mistake and should have the right to correct it, regardless of the wishes of the other party. Unfortunately for the Village, Mr. Kuwayama claims there was no mistake, that he was fully aware of what he was buying, and that the transaction was open, fair, and agreed to by all. It seems odd and a little disingenuous that in admitting they fouled up the deal, the Village has decided to compound the problem by forcibly “correcting” it. Such behavior certainly does not display any sense of culpability or regret, nor acknowledge the profound discomfort the public has with the use of eminent domain.

COMMENTS about this article (2)