Eminent domain could cause issues

To the editor:

I'm making remarks to the Thursday, Sept. 19, 2019, letter headlined “Committee needs to make progress” written by Mr. John G. Young.

Mr. Young made many very good points, which I agree with. The one I'm writing to downplay, is his remark, under his point “C. Temporary taxing, paragraph 1. While 'eminent domain' should be used sparingly, could it be used to address the removal of the railroad bridge?”

I have spent the past days considering this, and I continually think of a line, from the movie “Erin Brockovich,” in which Ed Masry was explaining to Erin why he was taking on a new partner, for their epic PG&E lawsuit. He explained that he was involved in a case, a big case, and the opposing lawyer buried him in paperwork for months, and that lawyer was their new partner. At a later point, he explained to the plaintiffs that if the case were to go to trial, instead of the form of arbitration that PG&E requested, that they could bury the case for years. 

I'm not ignorant, but I can see just that happening, if the city, county or even the State of Indiana were to try to pressure the railroad company about the trestle bridge. They could bury the local attorney(s) for months, or years, in paperwork, and the case would become a financial burden to any entity trying to pressure them. That is my thought on that suggestion. 

 I think that Portland, and Jay County, are going to have to decide on some other solution to the flooding of Portland, rather than end tied up in court for years, in a suit that they may well never stand a chance of winning.

Sincerely,

Daniel E. Chase

Portland