Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Liability Eminent Domain topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Attorneys warn Putnam County commission that condemnation of private property tied to gun club could expose county to cleanup liability
Summary
Attorneys for a Putnam County landowner said the county is not currently a party to litigation between the landowner and the Putnam County Gun Club but cautioned that a county-led condemnation could shift environmental cleanup liability to taxpayers; speakers said soil testing on the landowner's parcel showed lead contamination.
Attorneys representing landowner Jeremy Starks addressed the Putnam County Commission to warn that county condemnation of Mr. Starks' property on behalf of the Putnam County Gun Club could expose the county and its taxpayers to potential environmental cleanup liability.
Attorney Gay Elmore Jr., speaking with his son (who assists on the case), said the current lawsuit is between Mr. Starks and the Putnam County Gun Club and that the county is not a party to that litigation. Elmore said the legal strategy underpinning a prospective condemnation would rely on a narrow "gun range" exception to environmental law and described applying that exception to Mr. Starks' property as speculative.
Elmore said outside experts have taken soil samples on Mr. Starks' land and that "there is lead in the soil on Mr. Starks' property right now." He told the commission that if the county pursued condemnation and acquired the contaminated property, the county could become responsible for cleanup costs that, in his representation, might range from about $1 million to $12 million. He characterized reliance on the gun-range exception for contamination on property the gun club does not own as a risky basis for county action.
Gay Elmore Jr. and other counsel said Mr. Starks does not seek to close the gun club and has proposed alternatives, including reconfiguring ranges; counsel also said the gun club and its insurer have been central to the dispute over responsibility. The attorneys urged the commission to pause any condemnation plan and to evaluate exposure before moving forward.
A gun club member who spoke at the meeting asked how speakers could be certain that bullets found on Mr. Starks' property came from the gun club; attorneys said they had engaged experts and had conducted inspections and testing but noted that technical and legal disputes would be resolved in the pending court matter.
Commissioners did not vote on condemnation during the meeting. County staff and the commission acknowledged the comments and the presence of litigation but did not announce any change in position at the session.
