Letter: Mid-States Corridor is not just a Dubois County issue
As the Mid-States Corridor moves toward possible right-of-way acquisition, an important fact needs to remain clear, this is solely not a Dubois County issue. It is a regional project affecting Dubois, Martin, Daviess and other counties and that distinction matters.
The Property Rights Alliance (PRA) was formed by farmers, landowners, business owners and residents from several counties whose property and communities will be affected by the proposed corridor. The organization has continued to represent people throughout the multi-county area, not simply Dubois County.
And now, there’s a significant right-of-way issue developing.
INDOT’s October 2025 request for proposals for Section 2 right-of-way services states that approximately 400 parcels are expected to be acquired and that nearly half of those parcels will “need to be delivered” during the first 12 to 18 months. That wording is important. It describes a project requirement, not evidence that property owners have agreed to sell. The same RFP anticipated real-estate activities beginning in late summer 2026.
Before INDOT has even reached the acquisition stage, it encountered substantial resistance from property owners over just survey access. The original lawsuit involved 121 Dubois County property owners, and subsequent reports have placed the number involved in the survey-access litigation at approximately 165. The PRA became involved in assisting affected property owners, with attorney Russell Sipes reporting in April 2025 that he represented 88 of the 121 people then named in the lawsuit. This history should not be ignored or forgotten when discussing future right-of-way acquisition.
Several affected landowners have also made their positions clear publicly. Tom Bartelt, Bob Pfister and others have been outspoken in their opposition. The PRA’s membership extends beyond Dubois County; Martin County landowners—including Jason McCoy and Mike Arvin—have been prominent in the organization. Mr. McCoy is a Martin County resident and PRA chair.
Martin County landowners have a direct stake because the proposed corridor continues through their county. The same is true of Daviess County landowners farther north and west. What happens in Jasper and Huntingburg does not stop at the Dubois County line. This is why the public discussion should not be reduced to whether Dubois County wants the project.
There is also an important question about the claim of “regional support.”
Spencer County has taken a recent governmental action to remain in the Mid-States Corridor RDA. Dubois County commissioners also affirmed continued participation in the RDA in March 2026. (Editor’s note: The commissioners approved a recommendation to the Dubois County Council to remain in the RDA; however, the Dubois County Council voted to withdraw from the RDA) But remaining in or supporting the RDA is not necessarily the same as a county government formally voting to support construction of the Corridor as currently proposed. Daviess County officials and economic-development interests have expressed support for the project in the past, but that historical support should not automatically be presented as a current county-government endorsement.
That distinction matters because the public deserves to know exactly which county governments currently support construction of the proposed Corridor, rather than simply hearing that there is “regional support.”
And then there is the cost. The public has been given a moving target. The original Tier 1 study put the estimated cost of the approximately 54-mile corridor at roughly $900 million for the expressway construction portion. Yet the current estimate for only about 24 miles of Section 2 is now approximately $1.18 billion, including land acquisition and construction. That’s not a small difference.
If approximately 24 miles can now cost $1.18 billion, what will the remaining sections ultimately cost? And what happens when actual land acquisition begins, particularly when some property owners do not agree to sell voluntarily and condemnation proceedings become necessary?
The public should also be told exactly what these estimates include and what they don’t. Are future cost increases, additional right-of-way expenses, utility relocations, inflation, financing, environmental mitigation and other associated costs fully reflected? Is $1.18 billion a current estimate, a funding authorization, or a guaranteed maximum?
These distinctions matter to taxpayers.
There are more than three counties involved. There are landowners in all of the affected counties. There are communities in all of those counties. And ultimately, taxpayers throughout Indiana are being asked to help pay for the project. The question is whether the documented benefits justify the costs and impacts on the state and the communities affected.
The right-of-way question is particularly important now. If INDOT needs approximately 400 parcels for Section 2 and expects nearly half to be delivered within the first 12 to 18 months, the public should be told plainly: How many parcels have actually been acquired? How many owners have received offers? How many negotiations are underway? How many owners have indicated they will not voluntarily sell? And what is the timetable if those negotiations fail?
And regarding the cost, what is the current total estimated cost of the entire 54-mile corridor, not just Section 2, and what funding has actually been committed to pay for it?
There is also a question of political accountability. House District 63 includes all of Martin County and portions of Daviess, Dubois and Pike counties. State Senator Daryl Schmitt has acknowledged that the counties he represents have some differing views, saying there is strong opposition in Dubois County but there is also some support in other counties. Yet, he doesn’t offer any numbers of those who support the project. He has also said he has attended meetings, talked with residents and is working to modify portions of the proposal.
Amy Kippenbrock, a candidate for the District 63 House seat, has likewise said she understands concerns from both supporters and opponents. She supports the Senate Bill 27 provision requiring Budget Committee review of large projects and has said she wants a balance between property rights, taxpayer resources and economic needs. However, she has not taken a simple yes-or-no position on the Corridor as currently proposed.
Those positions are legitimate choices for candidates and elected officials. But voters are entitled to know what they believe should happen. If the answer is that the project should be modified, voters should be able to ask what specific changes they support and what conditions would have to be met.
These are not unreasonable questions. They are basic questions about the feasibility, cost, schedule, funding and political accountability surrounding a major public project.
The Corridor should not be portrayed as though property-owner opposition is limited to a few people in one county, nor should support be described broadly without identifying whether it comes from county governments, individual officials, businesses, economic-development organizations or other groups.
The Property Rights Alliance has organized landowners and residents across Dubois, Martin, Daviess and other counties.
Whether someone supports or opposes the Corridor, everyone should want the same thing from government: accurate information about the cost, schedule, funding, land acquisition, county-level support and risks.
This is a regional project. It deserves a regional discussion—and the people of all affected counties deserve to have their voices heard.
Jim Arvin
Rutherford Township
Martin County
Editor’s note: Mr. Arvin is not Jim Arvin, the former president of Jasper Desk.
