Lawsuit Settlement Highlights Incentive Pitfalls

J.Emerson
by J.Emerson

A long-running lawsuit over the value of the land on which Hyundai’s Montgomery, Alabama plant is located has been settled. The Montgomery Industrial Development Board will pay former landowners $3.45 million to settle their claims. The particulars of the case illustrate the potential hazards faced by advocacy groups when they attempt to incentivize industrial development.

According to the story in the Montgomery Advertiser, the nearly decade-long lawsuit came to a head last November, when a jury awarded the plaintiffs $4.87 million in damages. The plaintiffs are a group of landowners whose acres were purchased by the Industrial Development Board (IDB) for the development of the Hyundai plant. The IDB is a quasi-public body whose members are appointed by the Montgomery City Council. In Alabama, these development boards are the bodies through which industrial incentive money is typically disbursed.

The landowners initially agreed to accept a price of $4,500 an acre for their land after negotiations with the IDB. This price was structured as part of an “option” deal: the land would only be purchased if it was found to be absolutely necessary to construct the plant. A conflict arose when a lone holdout, realizing the value of their position, negotiated a price of $12,000 an acre. This triggered a lawsuit by the other landowners, who had a clause in their contracts forbidding any one owner to receive more compensation than another. After a lengthy procession through the courts, the IDB has agreed to a settlement rather than prolonging the case. It’s still unclear where the money to pay for the settlement will come from. The Board’s website lists land sales, member fees, and certificates of deposit as some of the ways that it raises revenue; it’s also empowered to issue bonds, under the terms of state law.

There’s no question that Hyundai’s arrival has been a major boon to Montgomery, and to Alabama in general. The state and local government incentives offered to the company were instrumental in getting the new plant built. Even so, this lawsuit attests to the fact that incentive packages often carry hidden costs, especially in the legal arena. Caught between the promises made to Hyundai and the need to fairly compensate landowners, the Board got stuck in a bad negotiating position. Now it will have to cough up much more money than originally planned.

J.Emerson
J.Emerson

More by J.Emerson

Comments
Join the conversation
 1 comment
  • Jonathan H. Jonathan H. on May 08, 2014

    My hometown, Glendale, KY, was one of the finalists competing for this plant when Hyundai decided to build in the US. Our state government had a site picked out and was busily trying to secure all the land(all family farms) required to woo the Koreans to the Kentucky. This is in addition to all the favorable tax incentives, footing the bill for interstate spurs and utilities, etc. The state was able to buy all the land they wanted except for one small farm on the outskirts of the "Future Home of Hyundai Motor Manufacturing" as they optimistically put it. That farm happens to be owned by some members of my family. My aunt and her son, who had farmed the land for decades, held out because the money they were being offered per acre wasn't enough to replace the livelihood they had in running the farm. The state continued to incrementally up the offer but the automaker chose Montgomery before a deal could be hammered out. Because of this, my family was pilloried by locals who wanted the plant at any cost as well as the governor himself who held up my aunt as the reason Kentucky lost out. The reality is that the politicians didn't have all their ducks in a row to tie into the interstate or get the right-of-ways further out in the county for the utilities. Plus, Alabama just offered more cash on the barrel head then Kentucky did. The state continued with the land grab despite not having anything to put on it and hundreds of acres still sit vacant as they keep trying to snare another manufacturing facility to occupy that spot. If my family had worked out a deal and Hyundai decided to build in Kentucky I'm sure this same type of suit would be happening as well due to the differences paid for different acreage.

  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Thankfully I don't have to deal with GDI issues in my Frontier. These cleaners should do well for me if I win.
  • Theflyersfan Serious answer time...Honda used to stand for excellence in auto engineering. Their first main claim to fame was the CVCC (we don't need a catalytic converter!) engine and it sent from there. Their suspensions, their VTEC engines, slick manual transmissions, even a stowing minivan seat, all theirs. But I think they've been coasting a bit lately. Yes, the Civic Type-R has a powerful small engine, but the Honda of old would have found a way to get more revs out of it and make it feel like an i-VTEC engine of old instead of any old turbo engine that can be found in a multitude of performance small cars. Their 1.5L turbo-4...well...have they ever figured out the oil dilution problems? Very un-Honda-like. Paint issues that still linger. Cheaper feeling interior trim. All things that fly in the face of what Honda once was. The only thing that they seem to have kept have been the sales staff that treat you with utter contempt for daring to walk into their inner sanctum and wanting a deal on something that isn't a bare-bones CR-V. So Honda, beat the rest of your Japanese and Korean rivals, and plug-in hybridize everything. If you want a relatively (in an engineering way) easy way to get ahead of the curve, raise the CAFE score, and have a major point to advertise, and be able to sell to those who can't plug in easily, sell them on something that will get, for example, 35% better mileage, plug in when you get a chance, and drives like a Honda. Bring back some of the engineering skills that Honda once stood for. And then start introducing a portfolio of EVs once people are more comfortable with the idea of plugging in. People seeing that they can easily use an EV for their daily errands with the gas engine never starting will eventually sell them on a future EV because that range anxiety will be lessened. The all EV leap is still a bridge too far, especially as recent sales numbers have shown. Baby steps. That's how you win people over.
  • Theflyersfan If this saves (or delays) an expensive carbon brushing off of the valves down the road, I'll take a case. I understand that can be a very expensive bit of scheduled maintenance.
  • Zipper69 A Mini should have 2 doors and 4 cylinders and tires the size of dinner plates.All else is puffery.
  • Theflyersfan Just in time for the weekend!!! Usual suspects A: All EVs are evil golf carts, spewing nothing but virtue signaling about saving the earth, all the while hacking the limbs off of small kids in Africa, money losing pits of despair that no buyer would ever need and anyone that buys one is a raging moron with no brains and the automakers who make them want to go bankrupt.(Source: all of the comments on every EV article here posted over the years)Usual suspects B: All EVs are powered by unicorns and lollypops with no pollution, drive like dreams, all drivers don't mind stopping for hours on end, eating trays of fast food at every rest stop waiting for charges, save the world by using no gas and batteries are friendly to everyone, bugs included. Everyone should torch their ICE cars now and buy a Tesla or Bolt post haste.(Source: all of the comments on every EV article here posted over the years)Or those in the middle: Maybe one of these days, when the charging infrastructure is better, or there are more options that don't cost as much, one will be considered as part of a rational decision based on driving needs, purchasing costs environmental impact, total cost of ownership, and ease of charging.(Source: many on this site who don't jump on TTAC the split second an EV article appears and lives to trash everyone who is a fan of EVs.)
Next