The liquor store, this link.
___________UPDATE___________
Sakry in reporting about the liquor store notes Elvig questioning any sense of urgency. It seems there is no real urgency, but for the November election coming soon, and the chance that the council make-up might change, possibly in ways less amenable to accommodating Jeff's interests. The City Attorney was noted in Sakry's report, as opining:
Were the city to acquire the Wise property, known as M&W Holdings, LLS, the city would be responsible for finding the business a new, comparable location and getting it set up again for operation, said City Attorney Bill Goodrich.
With a councilmember involved, a seemly thing to do would be to obtain a League of Minnesota Cities memorandum on that question. One laying out any such duties in detail, backed by legal authority. If Goodrich quoted any law behind his opinion, Sakry did not report of it.
The vote was unanimous, despite Elvig's mentioned concerns.
__________FURTHER UPDATE____________
To be totally clear, the last sentence should read: With Wise abstaining, the vote among the six other council members was unanimous, despite Elvig's mentioned concerns.
Precedent concerning business impact via changes in roadway have generally involved median barrier strips cutting off partial access to a commercial site and Minnesota law seems settled that this alone is not a compensable taking. Implementing a limited highway access plan with a service road access remaining, although perhaps more circuitous and less convenient, is generally not compensable. Changes of road grade and taking of property for road improvements complicate things. See, e.g., online cases here, here and here for nuances.
In general, disputes are better settled than not - negotiation being better than litigation when private parties are in dispute. When a municipality is a party with the adversarial landowner a municipal official things can look indecorous; as has been past history in Ramsey concerning town center land. Prior owners had the economic value of their land substantially increased by Highway 116 being extended from Ramsey Blvd to Armstrong, yet in settlement were given by City of Ramsey an amount roughly twice what the condemnation commission had decided was fair value. With that as history, dealing consistently with Wise is not outlandish, and clearly not unprecedented.
As to urgency, Wise in non-public negotiation with city staff, (as the private property landowner has all right to do), may have indicated a concern that optimal locations within the town center might be preempted if there is undue delay. What would be "undue" delay, and the realism of there currently not being any booming demand for Town Center land cuts against any such thoughts of urgency. Yet Wise is entitled to think and argue as he may, in his own best private land ownership interests.
Bottom line, to me, the City and Wise can avoid litigation if an amenable compromise is made, Wise selling at a price he and the City regard as fair, in negotiations, and his being accorded further consideration in relocation accommodation - a compensation in kind vs a compensation by payment - alone.
Whether Goodrich is fully correct on the nuances of a relocation being "owed" Wise, as was reported by ABC Newspapers as the Goodrich position in advising the city; nobody can contend that the City cannot negotiate land dealings which it believes beneficial, including land swaps, for any reason at all justifiable as rational.
If the City through its officials as decision makers decides to do a land swap with Wise, an in kind compensation, and one that even perhaps includes building a new structure for a continuation of the liquor retailing business done at the impacted site; the power is there and officials are presumed to act in the public interest absent exceptionally clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. An arrangement of a swap of like kind property might be more amenable to Wise and family rather than one that forces a recognition of capital gains tax consequences to the family, and if that is incentive to Wise to not hold out for more cash or for other terms more onerous to the City, then that is all for the good of the public and private interests at stake in negotiation.
The public interest is to improve community safety by fixing the Armstrong intersection while also expanding the road to handle higher future expected traffic demand. A further argued justification has been advanced, to make the Clown Center land more marketable since the council - previously - in its "wisdom" decided to purchase that land, as and when it was done, for the price paid. Past dumb decisions concerning Clown Center abound. I expect few would argue against that truth, in light of history. And continuation of dumb decision making by dumping more and more cash down an apparently bottomless rat hole will be judged at the ballot box this November. But, again, bottom line, if the City through its duly authorized officials, with Wise abstaining, decides to do whatever is needed to make officials and Wise satisfied and willing to settle in advance of possible litigation - go for it.
Citizens who might dislike the situation, or want to second guess things, have until this summer's filing deadline to run for council if believing they have better ways of running things and better minds for decision making.
Details of any particular land-related decision making, or other decisions of officials might be upsetting, as the settlement of the Highway 116 compensation without trial was to me back before Nedegaard's LLC bought the land, but personal opinion cannot trump the certainty that the city has powers that reasonably fit its need to serve a resident population. We can judge the wisdom of decisions, but should be cautious in inferring any wrongfulness absent very clear circumstances suggesting it; and we cannot dispute the powers that municipalities hold to govern in the public interest.
So, City of Ramsey officials - if you and Council member Wise can negotiate things in a mutually satisfactory way regarding his private property interests and the public's interests, and reach settlement, then do so, and if settlement is more easily reached by promptness, then that chance alone is urgency enough for acting now.