A group of Grand Junction residents and small‑business owners pressed the City Council during public comment on June 18 over the city’s use of eminent domain and how the matter was handled on a consent agenda, saying a long‑running downtown dealership learned of potential condemnation only after press reports.

Mike and Amber Martinez, who own GJ Auto Sales and said they operated the business for 22 years, told the council they were not consulted about plans that placed their property in maps for a proposed regional transportation hub and that they learned details from a newspaper. "To know now that you all had agreed to eminent domain and condemnation behind our backs is disgusting," Amber Martinez said. She told council the family had not been made whole, lost financing channels and were not able to reestablish a dealership because of changed lending requirements.

Several other speakers echoed those concerns and urged procedural changes. Kirby Richardson, co‑owner of a local physical therapy clinic, said decisions were buried on a consent agenda and called the process “backroom dealing” that erodes trust. Lisa Frye and Ruth Kennett urged the council to stop using the consent agenda for eminent‑domain authorizations and to place such items on the regular agenda with time for public input. Greg Heights and others asked that staff and council offer more support to affected small businesses, including legal counseling and relocation assistance.

Speakers raised questions about who coordinated with CDOT and whether city staff and some council members had been aware of plans before the property owners. Carol Rathburn urged firings of specific staff she named, and others demanded that council explain why no city‑owned property was offered as a relocation option.

Council members did not take formal action on the public comments during the meeting; several council members and the mayor acknowledged the depth of public concern and indicated they would consider policy changes. Multiple speakers asked the council to adopt a formal policy barring eminent‑domain authorizations on consent agendas so that the public and affected property owners receive clear advance notice and opportunity for input.

The city’s use of consent‑agenda procedures for this matter and the timing of notices was the central complaint. Public commenters asked for: (1) the city to remove eminent‑domain items from consent agendas, (2) the city to require direct notice and an opportunity to be heard for property owners included in federal grant applications or project maps, and (3) creation of assistance mechanisms (legal counsel funds, relocation options, or temporary tax breaks) for displaced small businesses. Council did not adopt any of these measures during the June 18 meeting; staff and council discussed following up.