If they were only going to work within the city’s right of way, then how come she received a condemnation letter? That doesn’t make sense to me.
That said, and depending on how much land is lost, I’d think that the road improvements will elevate the value of her remaining land.
3 Likes
Does appear that very little additional right-of-way (R/W) is needed on the south (residential) side to contain the improvements.
However the top of slope (dashed line with “C” label) for the cut bank encroaches beyond the R/W for some properties. Temporary construction easements (go away after construction is completed) and some permanent slope easements will be required.
5 Likes
@John I’m no expert on this - just reporting information previously shared by city staff. Looking more closely at the map that @TDR shared it looks like most of the improvements are within the existing ROW, but there is an orange line marked E that delineates a proposed easement. Maybe that is the reason for the condemnation letter? I would think/hope that some sort of communication from the city would be required whenever engaging in this type of project involving ROW work and easements.
2 Likes
Also not an attorney but from past experience serving as an agent for a town/NCDOT on a similar road improvement project can confirm that easements can be acquired by eminent domain (condemnation). Quick research also confirms this to be true for NC.
Managed to settle all 54 of my parcels except one vacant tract where so many scattered heirs made it easier to just condemn and figure out who to pay later. But it wasn’t by paying some any more as that news would have been spread throughout the neighborhood by sunset. 
Instead addressed each parcel individually for impact with some getting some hardscape and/or softscape treatments across their frontage. Some got low or high retaining walls to preserve front yard area. Landscaping, including trees, was also a mitigation option. But then that project had some funds to do such things and it was only needed for just a few of the higher-elevation lots.
4 Likes
I thought the city’s ROW was plenty of room too and was surprised by the letter. I personally don’t care how much they take as long as I’m compensated appropriately. It will affect other residents more than me though, since I don’t live on the property. Most people who live there rent so they will lose their yard and see no financial gain.
The future development of the area is what’s driving the land value so while the road project is a positive it doesn’t really impact the “best use” value of the property. If the property were to be sold for a single family home it would have an an impact on the value, but it’ll sell to a developer.
1 Like
Thank you, I had not seen the map.
Wow, the construction limits are essentially at people’s front doors. I’m honestly shocked. My entire driveway is within their construction limits.
1 Like
If the city hadn’t bought the Dix property the homes on Lake Wheeler would be worth significantly less than they are today. The increase in value was brought by a shared Raleigh tax base that overpaid for Dix park from the NC government. Asking that same taxpayer to then highly compensate in addition to the windfall they have already given is a unique position. But alas, it’s genius government - so I’d imagine they will overpay on already inflated values to avoid lawsuits.
Regardless, in the long run, the city will be better off tearing down those single family homes and building 20-40 story buildings with hundreds of residents per acre and hopefully one day actually activating this park (without requiring a festival)…
6 Likes
Compensation for a slope easement is not going to be a significant amount of money.
Amount of property owned is not reduced. Setbacks are not reduced. Property afterward can be developed in same manner as today.
Easement holder has the right to grade that slope easement area. However owner might even be able to later change that grade including installing vertical transition walls. Depends on the easement language.
Basically compensating difference in property value with the easement compared to the value without which is going to be negligible since full utility remains.
1 Like
Ah, well simple enough… So effectively nothing is changed and the purpose of this being they can make the private property level with the city owned property for road/sidewalk/etc improvements?
The ol’ slope easement and eminent domain confusion… classic! Learned something new today…
1 Like
Are you assuming that these are just slope easements or do you know that for a fact? In the meeting the city said they would be negotiating new right of way, temporary and permanent easements for the project.
Yes, it is changing. Maybe not noticeable to you but very much so for the people that are loosing a large portion of their already small front yards and will have construction equipment outside their front doors for years.
Also, the city will be negotiating new right of way, temporary and permanent easement agreements with property owners through September of this year.
1 Like
I find your comments very offensive.
Those homeowners should be compensated every cent that the property is worth. Fuller Heights is situated across the street from 308 acres of pristine land that is a few minutes walking from downtown and the state farmers market. There are only two residential blocks that face all of Dix Park and this is where they are located. It also has extremely easy access to I-40. Just because it is a low income neighborhood does not mean it didn’t already have tremendous value. Regardless of the city buying the park, this area would eventually be developed for the reasons stated above.
These people don’t need gratitude, they need compensation based on the highest and best use of their property. That number has nothing to do with taxpayer money used on the park. It will be based on the 7.5 acres that were purchased for development on the next block over for 34.75 million.
1 Like
I’m not sure why you find his comments offensive. If he’s going off historical precedent, then it is what it is. The fact that it depends on the easement language is 100% correct. He’s going out of his way to help you get an idea of what you can expect from the city.
4 Likes
I have a couple of questions about these two blocks that you may or may not know the answers.
- How many homes on these two blocks are owner occupied by low income residents? For example, this home 1341 Lake Wheeler Rd, Raleigh, NC 27603 | Zillow was purchased for a very modest price in 1996 and very well could be a low income owner. This area is anything but affordable to low/modest income earners now. 1333 Lake Wheeler Rd, Raleigh, NC 27603 | MLS #2443321 | Zillow
- If in fact renters (especially long term ones) are subject to the day to day issues associated with this, do you think that they should be compensated by the city, or should only the owner be compensated? I ask because a lot of low income residents in the city have never been owners.
1 Like
The offensive comment has nothing to do with the easement. It’s that he is saying that the people of fuller heights should just be grateful that their property value increase and shouldn’t be compensated for the full value of their land through eminent domain.
I don’t know the percentages, but there is definitely a mixture. Most everyone who lives in fuller heights is low income, but many of them are families that are long term renters. Some are owners. After the city purchased the park, investors started buying some of the properties. Recent home sales are still in the low $300’s so I would think that is low income, but I’m not sure what prices technically qualify for low income. It’s my understanding that Fuller Heights is one of the last remaining naturally occurring low income neighborhoods within the belt line.
I would love for renters to be compensated, but I imagine that would have to come in the form of a reduced rent by the owner. Their front yard is essentially going to be rented by the city so why shouldn’t they see that reduction in their rent from the owner?
Aren’t the renters and homeowners getting sidewalks? Is that not an improvement? Why would renters get anything at all? I personally wouldn’t expect to be compensated for that. I would die for sidewalks in my neighborhood.
Would you love having your front yard destroyed and filled with staging materials and equipment for years? I’m guessing not. This section of road is very dangerous and has needed sidewalks for decades, but they are only getting them now so that other people going to the park and future developments can use them. This road improvement is not for the local residents, it’s for the future use of the property. It’s essentially one step in the process to displace these people. So no they’re not happy about it.
Renters should be compensated by their landlords because part of what they are renting is being taken away. They will no longer have access to their front yards.
This is why we can’t build real infrastructure in this country. I’d be the happiest homeowner on the planet if I owned one of those houses and I’d be encouraging my neighbors to quit bitching and let them get the work done as quickly as possible.
4 Likes