"An Island business connecting Islanders since 1913"
Grosse Ile Bridge Company
P.O. Box 24
Grosse Ile, Michigan 48138
July 18, 2008
GIBC Sets the Record Straight with the Facts
Dear Islanders:
In response to letters to the editor of the Ile Camera and news articles about the Township Board’s eminent domain lawsuit against the Grosse Ile Bridge Company (GIBC), we would like to set the record straight to protect our business reputation.
The GIBC understands the public’s significant interest in the Township Board's litigation. The following ten facts answer commonly asked questions and provide Islanders with the truth about this matter.
1. The eminent domain litigation was initiated five years ago when then-Treasurer Kurt Kobiljak authored and introduced a “Resolution of Necessity” during the June 9, 2003 meeting of the Township Board. There was no public input or discussion about this lawsuit prior to the Township Board starting it.
2. Following Mr. Kobiljak's lead, his “Resolution of Necessity” was approved by a 7 to 0 vote. Five members – a majority – of the present Township Board were serving in 2003 and voted in favor of the eminent domain lawsuit.
3. The Township Board started litigation against the GIBC without even showing the courtesy of first talking to Paul Smoke who is the owner of this 4th generation family business that has been faithfully serving Islanders since 1913. During the first 90 years of its operation, the GIBC was not sued by Grosse Ile or Riverview -- relations were excellent.
4. On May 7, 2004, Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Susan Borman rejected all of the Township Board’s reasons for their lawsuit in a strongly worded 18 page opinion concluding that the “Township abused its discretion” by pursuing this litigation. The Township Board appealed this verdict and subsequently the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in favor of the GIBC.
5. Judge Borman’s written opinion specifically addressed the Township Board’s unsubstantiated claims about Matty Maroun/Riverview-Trenton Railroad (RTRR) by stating, “In short, there is no credible evidence before the Court that reflects that RTRR has any intention of condemning the Toll Bridge.”
6. It is simply not legally possible for a railroad to condemn the Toll Bridge. Michigan law provides both bridge companies and railroads with eminent domain powers, but both types of entities are expressly prohibited from condemning each others' right-of-ways and property.
According to the U.S. Surface Transportation Board, there is not one case in American history of a railroad condemning a bridge used for vehicle transportation.
7. Riverview’s official position on record with the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB) is that RTRR is not operating a railroad and may never do so.
In their capacity as the legal counsel for Riverview, the law firm of Pentiuk, Couvreur & Kobiljak filed a brief with the STB on September 14, 2006 that stated, “RTRR offers no specifics and does not refute the City of Riverview’s contention that RTRR invoked STB jurisdiction for the primary purpose of usurping local governmental regulation…RTRR may have no intention to conduct rail operations on the site.”
8. On May 18, 2007, Judge Borman ruled that the Township Board must pay for the GIBC’s successful legal defense as mandated by the Michigan Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act. Although the Township Board has engaged in legal maneuvers to delay the final judgment on the amount due, Michigan law is clear that they must pay.
The Township Board’s stalling tactics are only increasing the amount of the ultimate bill. It is important to understand that private property owners in Michigan typically spend far more than the government to prevail in eminent domain lawsuits.
9. According to a February 2, 2007 article in the Ile Camera, the Township Board has spent $448,190 pursuing their lawsuit. The Township Board has not disclosed the subsequent total cost of their litigation.
Regardless of how high the final bill may be, this is already, by far, the most expensive lawsuit in the history of Grosse Ile Township government.
10. The GIBC believes that the Township Board will initiate new confrontations, possibly in conjunction with Riverview, against us during 2009. The Township Board persuaded the Riverview City Council to support their litigation in 2006. Consider what's happening right now.
The law firm of Pentiuk, Couvreur & Kobiljak, acting for Riverview, is considering an appeal of their highly aggressive lawsuit against the GIBC that Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Prentis Edwards ruled had "no basis in Michigan law."
The Township Board failed to cooperate with the GIBC on the Bridge Pass service during the County Bridge closure period. They are also blocking our fire hydrant project that is intended to enhance safety and enable the construction of the GIBC's new operations building in the toll plaza.
Commenting on this situation, the Detroit News editorial board published an editorial on September 5, 2007 that stated, "Instead of accepting its well-deserved legal defeat, the township has decided to continue to harass the bridge owner."
At some point in the future, we hope to restore the mutually respectful and positive relationship between the GIBC and the Township Board that existed for the first 90 years of our operations.
The GIBC greatly appreciates the support of Islanders and loyal customers who have stood by us during this long, expensive and counter-productive ordeal that has been stressful for our employees and the Smoke family.
Sincerely,
Greg Karmazin
GIBC Director of Community & Government Relations
P.S. In order to view the sources and documents for these ten facts, please view the GIBC's web site at www.TollBridgeFacts.com. Have additional questions? Please feel free to contact me by e-mail at karmazingibc@aol.com or phone at (734) 718-8465.