Liberty Matters News Service
March 8, 2002
Eminent
Domain Epidemic
The
Washington Times reports governments all over America are
increasingly using their powers of eminent domain to oust private
citizens from their homes to make way for shopping malls, industrial
developments and upscale housing. In
New London, CT the homes of dozens of people have been condemned to make
way for an office park and other development to compliment a nearby
Pfizer research center. The
city of Riviera Beach, FL is planning to force more than 5,000 residents
from their homes to build a privately owned commercial and industrial
development. Lawyers at the
non-profit organization, Institute of Justice, report that they
“cannot handle even one-tenth of the cases that now come its way.” The Castle Coalition, an organization recently formed
to fight eminent domain abuse, has issued a report identifying ten of
the worst examples; “Government
Theft: The Top Ten Abuses
of Eminent Domain, 1998-2002.” To
learn more, go to www.castlecoalition.org.
Hawaiians are fighting their own battle over eminent domain after
the Honolulu City Council condemned “the land of four small landowners
in Waikiki only to turn it over to another private entity, the Outrigger
Hotel and Resorts, so that company could develop a $300 million hotel
and restaurant superblock.” The
Hawaiian legislature is attempting to deal with the situation.
Eminent
Domain Abuses Unchecked
Condemnation
Powers Questioned
Coalition
Forms To Fight Abuse of Eminent Domain
Judge Agrees:
People Matter Too
U.S.
District Judge Stephen V. Wilson said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
must redo the economic analysis of critical
habitat for the California gnatcatcher and the fairy shrimp.
The judge referenced the 10th Circuit Court of
Appeals, that in May, 2001, struck down streamside habitat protection
for the Southwestern willow flycatcher, when it ruled the Service had
not adequately analyzed the financial effect on property owners and
others who make a living from the land. One study estimated that the
“gnatcatcher habitat would cost the state $5.5 billion in lost jobs,
housing and property value over 20 years.”
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said the administration’s
request for review “is part of a broad reevaluation of ‘critical
habitat’ designations,” and which environmentalists see as the
beginning of a rollback of protections of ‘endangered’ plants and
animals. William Snap, vice
president of legal affairs for Defenders of Wildlife whined that “this
is a huge issue because…I think it’s upwards of 100 species whose
habitats are hanging in the balance.”
Kristen Gustafson, the attorney for USFW stated, ”the
gnatcatcher and fairy shrimp will not suffer harm if the habitat were
vacated…because both creatures would be adequately protected by other
sections of the Endangered Species Act."
Judge
Overturns 'Critical Habitat' of 2 Species
Heads
Up, Western Livestock Grazers
A
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case may offer livestock grazers whose
permits have been suspended or canceled, an opportunity to request a
review of the circumstances by the Forest Service.
In the July 2001 case Anchustegui v. Department of Agriculture,
the Court held that the Forest Service had violated Section 558(c) of
the Administrative Procedures Act, which provides that the government
may not take action to annul a license (grazing permit) unless the
agency first gives ample written notice of the facts and gives the
permittee an opportunity to respond.
The Service has now changed its policy to comply with the
Court’s decision and further, has established a policy to review
circumstances of previous grazing permit suspensions that occurred
within the last six years. The
suspensions will only be reviewed upon request by the permittee and only
those occurring within the proper time frame will be considered.
All those meeting such criteria are urged to contact an attorney
to discuss their legal options.
Important
Notice
Owls Not
Endangered?
A
coalition of timber groups argue the federal government has failed to
follow the Endangered Species Act requirement to review the status of
threatened animals every five years and that new evidence indicates the
birds are not as rare as formerly believed.
The petition states “scientists have produced a ‘materially
different picture of the status of the northern spotted owl
population’ than what federal officials relied on in extending legal
protection to the birds in 1990.” Secretary Norton has 60 days to answer the petition.
If she fails to do so, or if the timber group is dissatisfied
with her response, it can legally file suit against the government.
Removing the owls’ protection may not be a long shot, either,
since a California judge recently lifted critical habitat protection for
two species in response to pressure from the Bush administration.
Timber
Group Seeks End to Owl Protection
Only
in California - Vagrants Win
A
recent Liberty Matters story told of a San Francisco ordinance that
required owners of a renovated historic hotel to set aside a certain
number of rooms for the homeless folks who had been displaced by the
improvements or pay a sum of $600,000 to be released from the
requirement. The owners
sued, claiming a regulatory taking.
The suit went to the California Supreme Court, which rejected
their claim, 4-3 proving that only in California do vagrants have more
rights than hardworking, taxpaying, landowning citizens.
Georgetown
Environmental Law & Policy Institute's Takings-Net