Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Condemnation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves authorization for property takings in developer-linked sewer project after owners object
Summary
Charlotte City Council authorized items concerning property takings (items 59 and 60) requested for a utility/project that a private developer will use; family representatives objected and said a lawsuit is pending and asked council to defer action.
The Charlotte City Council voted on March 24 to approve agenda items authorizing property takings tied to a utility project requested by a private developer, after neighbors and property owners objected and asked the council to delay action while a separate lawsuit proceeds.
Attorney Tommy Odom appeared on behalf of the May, Henninghausen and Davis families and told the council they objected to allowing the city to authorize takings to benefit a private developer. Odom said another law firm has already filed suit in a related condemnation matter and asked council to allow court proceedings to run their course before the city took further steps. He said owners were concerned that the taking’s primary purpose favored a private party rather than a purely public use.
City staff and the city attorney briefed council in closed session at a prior meeting, the manager told the chamber, and council heard statements during the public meeting both from Odom and from staff describing the public‑works aspects of the project (including sewer work) that city leaders say serve multiple properties. Councilmember Ed Driggs (referred to in the meeting as Mr. Driggs) urged the council not to substitute itself for a court. He said the council’s role was to follow normal procedures and not to act as a tribunal for lawsuits; he supported proceeding with the authorization rather than deferral.
Following discussion, a motion to authorize the items (items 59 and 60) carried; the meeting record shows a motion and a second and a vote in favor. The council did not expand on alternative approaches on the floor and did not specify further conditions tied to the authorization during the public meeting. The families’ counsel said they had not received written answers to earlier questions and reiterated the request that the council not authorize condemnation while litigation is pending.
Why this matters: property‑taking and condemnation decisions involve constitutional limits and can prompt litigation; owners and developer interests are in active dispute. Councilmembers and staff emphasized both the stated multi‑property public utility benefits and the affected owners’ concerns that the primary beneficiary is a private developer.
Provenance: discussion and public comment on items 59 and 60 took place in the March 24 council meeting’s consent/regular session and public‑comment segments.
