Tribune staff editorial

In the case of Farmland’s insurance companies against the City of Albert Lea, we have a third party trying to put itself in the middle of an issue that is clearly between a landowner and a municipal authority.

Friday, March 29, 2002

In the case of Farmland’s insurance companies against the City of Albert Lea, we have a third party trying to put itself in the middle of an issue that is clearly between a landowner and a municipal authority. It’s a place the insurance companies don’t belong. And even though the judge has ruled in favor of the city, the chance of an appeal means this dispute could continue to delay a new plant.

It’s understandable that the companies are looking out for their own interests. And it’s fine that they have their own ideas about whether the partly burned Farmland plant can be rehabilitated. They contend that it can, while Farmland and the city insist it’s damaged beyond a reasonable expectation of repair.

The problem is that the insurance companies are attempting to supercede the City of Albert Lea’s right to make its own judgments about what structures meet its criteria for demolition. The city has been saying for months that the plant is badly damaged, dangerous and environmentally hazardous. If the city has issued a demolition order, the property owner can object, but in this case, Farmland is not objecting.

It is true that Farmland has a financial incentive not to object. If the city orders the demolition, the insurance companies can no longer push for the plant to be repaired. Farmland will then need money for a new plant – and that’s more money than the companies want to pay. But perhaps Farmland has sincerely concluded that the plant complex can’t be fixed and feel they have no reason to object to the city’s order.

Whatever the reason for Farmland’s willingness to go along with the demolition order, the fact remains that a third party has no business objecting. If it were allowed to object, it would set quite a precedent. Anybody who was adversely affected by a demolition order could make a case that they have grounds to protest.

A more immediate consequence of the insurance companies’ action, if they appeal, is to further stall efforts to get Farmland up and running again in Albert Lea – and just when it was appearing that there may have been a breakthrough soon. With plans taking shape for a new plant and bills in the legislature offering the chance for help, it appeared that the time might finally be approaching when the company’s future in Albert Lea would be decided. We hope that is still the case.

While we wait to see if an appeal happens and if the insurance companies and Farmland can reach a settlement, 200 employees are still waiting to see if they’ll have jobs, and the economy in and around Freeborn County is without the shot in the arm a new plant would provide.

It’s unfortunate that the insurance companies and Farmland have not been able to agree on a fair settlement, and the saddest part is that these corporations aren’t the ones who suffer in the meantime. The suffering is borne by the ex-employees and by the Albert Lea area as a whole.