Several landowners along the route of a new South Baldwin County bridge project are headed to court this year as the state and property owners continue to negotiate compensation for land the Alabama Department of Transportation needs to complete the crossing. Court records show trial dates now set for multiple parcels, and in at least two cases the state has raised its offer since the fall.
The road and bridge project will create a third span over the Intracoastal Waterway connecting Gulf Shores and Orange Beach, a long-sought addition intended to ease traffic bottlenecks along the coast during peak tourist season. Building the new route has required the state to acquire dozens of parcels through eminent domain, a process that often ends in condemnation lawsuits when landowners and the state cannot agree on a price.
Attorney Warren Herlong, who represents owners of several of the affected properties, said he initially handled condemnation cases involving seven parcels taken by the state for the project. Four of those cases remain open, with two currently scheduled for trial. In both of those pending cases, Herlong said, the state has slightly increased its offer since September.
One of the most significant parcels in the project is a roughly 135-acre tract that will serve as the bridge’s south landing and its intersection with Canal Road. The property is owned by Laura Almaroad, Wanda Dickman and Joy Sprunger, who are represented by Herlong. The state’s initial offer of about $3.8 million has since been revised upward to $4.3 million.
“What is happening there is they are taking a certain amount of acres, but then they are denying access to the remaining acreage,” Herlong said. “The state is offering compensation for that denial of access, and we certainly want to be compensated.”
A second case involving 8.38 acres owned by Tony and Patricia Diliberto has also seen its offer rise, from an initial $405,000 to $440,000. The property includes a large house along with rental units and other outbuildings. Tony Diliberto is a retired Gulf Shores firefighter.
“For Diliberto, it’s about the amount of just compensation,” Herlong said. “What the state offered is public record, and I can tell you that. But what we contend is the appropriate amount I can’t divulge yet. As to what our position is, that’s got to be kept under wraps for the time being.”
Diliberto has said publicly that despite the personal toll of the acquisition, he supports the broader project. Speaking at a public meeting on the bridge in November, he said, “I’ve got a bullseye on my home. I’m losing my home and I’ve lived in it for 40 something years and I’m still in favor of it.” The Diliberto case has a trial date set for September.
Herlong’s two other pending cases involve Doyce and Shirley Ellenberg, who were offered $1.285 million for 21.25 acres, and the Williams Joseph Evans Revocable Trust, which was offered $737,150 for its property. Unlike the Almaroad and Diliberto parcels, those offers have not changed since September. The Evans case is scheduled for trial in November.
Separately, attorney Richard Davis is handling two condemnation cases now pending in circuit court. One involves the owners of the Pandion Ridge development, whose land sits on the south side of the Intracoastal Waterway; the state’s initial offer for the 49.75-acre tract was just under $3.7 million. Pandion Ridge has a pre-trial conference scheduled for June 6.
The second of Davis’s cases involves property on the north side of the waterway, where the new bridge’s footing is planned. The state offered Coastal Resort Properties of North Carolina $943,150 for 29 acres at that site, with a trial date set for Sept. 9.
A smaller but notable case involves the Baldwin County Bridge Company, a subsidiary of the company that operates the toll-based Foley Beach Express. The state offered the company $9,750 for a small 0.13-acre parcel needed for the project, and that case is also awaiting a trial date.
Condemnation proceedings are a routine, if often contentious, part of major infrastructure projects, allowing the state to take possession of needed right-of-way while a judge or jury ultimately determines fair market value when landowners and the state cannot reach agreement. With several trial dates now on the calendar for the second half of the year, the outcome of these cases could set benchmarks for compensation on any remaining parcels tied to the bridge project.