Two courts have now ruled that Oxford Village ‘abused its discretion? by determining free parking to be a necessity and using it as a basis to condemn private property owned by the Grove family in downtown’s northeast quadrant.
Will the village try its luck with a third court?
‘It’s always my position to let the council call it,? said village attorney Bob Bunting. ‘They’ve got their feeling for the parking issues and what their goals are.?
Council is expected to decide whether or not it will appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court at a Tuesday, Feb. 28 closed session with its attorney, according to Bunting.
On Feb. 14, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld a 2004 Oakland County Circuit Court ruling that the village ‘abused its discretion? by determining free parking to be a necessity and therefore a reason to take two private parcels totalling approximately 28,086 square feet owned by Nathan Grove.
‘We have a much more conservative appellate court now than we have (had) historically,? Bunting said.
Grove, who also owns Grove’s True Value Hardware, owns two parcels containing roughly 56 parking spaces in the heart of downtown’s northeast quadrant. He’s currently out of town and could not be reached for comment.
In 2002, following the village’s rejection of Grove’s proposal to lease the parking to the municipality for $4,000 per month for 20 years (with an annual 3 percent inflationary increase), he announced he would convert the property to a pay-to-park facility.
‘The village thought that was, in their discretion, a lot of money,? Bunting said.
The village attempted to buy the property for $170,000 based on an appraisal it had done, but Grove rejected the offer believing the land and its potential pay-to-park business were worth in excess of $1 million. This led the village in July 2002 to institute a condemnation proceeding using free parking as a necessity for the taking of private property.
‘I think the village thought they were on fairly solid ground to try this novel approach to insure free parking for the community,? Bunting said. ‘This case was about a concept that the village has had for years historically. There was a lot of evidence deduced on it during the trial that they want it to be an adequate free parking community.?
Bunting noted the village had input from the DDA, its planner McKenna & Associates, planner Don Wortman, and a traffic study.
‘They didn’t just do it off the top of their heads,? Bunting said. ‘Wortman, an outside expert hired by the village to analyze this, testified that free parking really promotes the viability of a historical town.?
However, the Court of Appeals, like the Circuit Court before it, disagreed with the village and its experts? reasoning.
‘Given that parking was a necessity, that defendant (Grove) intended to provide parking and that there was no basis in fact for plaintiff’s (village) conclusion that parking had to be free, the trial court did not err in its determination of necessity,? wrote the Court of Appeals in its Feb. 14 decision.
The Court of Appeals also said, ‘Certainly, if (Grove) did not intend to operate a parking lot, thereby depriving (the village) of a significant portion of available parking in the area, it could be argued that the taking was necessary. However, (Grove) intended to maintain the property for use as a parking lot.?
‘No study or other objective evidence showed that citizens would drive around neighborhoods or crowd into other areas of the village to avoid paid parking or would cease patronizing businesses in the area altogether if parking were not free,? the Court of Appeals wrote. The village’s ‘determination that paid parking was detrimental to the public was based on pure speculation.?
So, far the village has spent $72,626 in legal fees since April 2002 to pursue this case and now could be liable for Grove’s legal expenses as well.
‘The downside in condemnation cases (is) if you don’t prevail you have to pay the other side’s attorney fees,? according to Bunting.
Should the village end the legal battle with the Court of Appeals decision or go on to the state Supreme Court and lose, Bunting said the ‘condemnation statute has a provision for attorney’s fees as well? and the village has ‘that exposure? financially.
Despite what appears to be a high cost for taxpayers in legal fees for both sides, Bunting said it was still worth it from a financial standpoint for the village.
‘It’s a lot cheaper than what the $4,000 a month would have been all these years,? the attorney said. ‘That started in 2002. So, in one year you burn that up. We’ve really had a nice ride on this.?
Bunting was quite complimentary of the Grove family’s contributions to the village over the years.
‘The Groves historically in this community have just been wonderful in allowing essentially $1 a year free parking at a number of their places,? he said.
From 1974 to Jan. 1, 2002, the Groves leased the northeast quadrant parcels to the village in exchange for $1 per year in rent, free maintenance and improvement of the property and no assessment of property taxes.
‘How can you criticize these people because they have for years done this for free,? Bunting said. ‘I’ve got to commend the Groves family for being so nice to the village all these years.?
‘There’s a lot of very favorable feeling to the Groves for being such community supporters.?
Grove currently has a purchase agreement in place with Bob Knauf, an Oxford businessman and real estate investor, for the northeast quadrant property for an undisclosed amount.
An appraisal of the Grove’s two parcels, paid for by the Oxford Downtown Development Authority last summer, indicated their value was a combined $561,720.
Knauf has never commented on his plans for the property should he purchase it, although sources inside the village said he had attempted to use the Grove parcels as bargaining chips in a proposed trade for other village land.
Bunting noted Grove’s offer ‘to provide for pay-to-park? is ‘not a binding offer.?
‘He’s free to develop it in accordance with the C-1 (downtown commercial) zoning and if he does, than it’s going to further exacerbate the parking issue, but that’s his right to develop it.?