Liberty
Matters News Service
December 1, 2005
Angry Oregonians Seek Recall of Judge
In November 2004, 61 percent of Oregonian voters approved Measure 37 requiring a public entity to pay just compensation to a property owner if they enacted a land use regulation that restricted the use or reduced the fair market value of private real property. This past October, Marion County Circuit Court Judge Mary James ruled Measure 37 unconstitutional. Now, supporters of Measure 37 want to recall Judge James and have filed a petition to do just that. James in her ruling wrote that "Because Measure 37 currently imposes limitations on government's exercise of plenary power to regulate land use in Oregon, it is unconstitutional." Tom Steffin, who filed the recall papers, said he was prompted to do so when his 11-year old home-schooled son said to him; "Dad, I thought the whole purpose of the Constitution was to limit the power of the government." The case against Measure 37 was filed by a former state senator Harold MacPherson, several land owners, five farm bureau organizations and 1,000 Friends of Oregon. To add insult to injury, Judge James also awarded court costs and attorney fees to the plaintiffs to be paid by the defendants, several state agencies and the intervenor-defendants, people like 93-year-old Dorothy English, who has waited decades for permission to use her land to fund her retirement. James Leuenberger, a Lake Oswego attorney applauded the recall efforts, but said the proponents face "an uphill battle." Leuenberger said every Oregon official is required to swear to support the Oregon and the U.S. Constitution. "But," he said, "it would be really nice if they'd actually read them." "They just don't seem to understand that the people are the sovereigns of the state," he continued. "It's not the governor, it's not the legislators, it's not the judges; it's the people." October 25th, Oregonians in Action filed an appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court in an effort to overturn Judge James' ruling.
Property Rights Advocates Seek to
Recall Judge
Changes in Mining Laws Scare Enviros
Included in the House Budget Reconciliation bill is a provision to change the Mining Law of 1872 to raise the price of mining property to $1,000 an acre or fair market value from the $2.50 per acre under the 1872 law. The buyer would then possess surface as well as mineral rights and would mean the owner would have to manage it well as long as he owned it. Environmentalists immediately became hysterical, claiming the proposal would put 350 million acres of public land on the auction block. Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) called the changes "an unprecedented assault on public lands in Montana." He continued to hyperventilate by saying, "[T]he plan being debated in the House could threaten that heritage and put golf courses and strip malls on prime public hunting and fishing lands across the state." There is no such provision in the Senate budget bill. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) who recently offered legislation to sell 15 percent of low-use public lands said, "My bill would give environmentalists an excellent opportunity to put their money where their mouth is and buy up federal land for conservation."
Change in Controversial Mining Law
Approved
Giving Environmentalists a
Chance to Put Up or…Not
Florida Working on Wildlands Project
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection continues to fulfill the state's Florida Forever project of preserving up to 80 percent of Florida's land for the Wildlands Project. The most recent acquisition was for a conservation easement on more than 800 acres in the Lake Wales Ridge area costing $1.2 million taxpayer dollars. The reason for conservation easements is they are cheaper for the state than outright acquisition. "What makes this so exciting," gushed Tricia Martin, Lake Wales program director for the Nature Conservancy, is that it "represents progress in our efforts to piece the natural areas back together again." She continued, "It's so important for us to try and connect these landscapes and try to manage these lands into the future." More than $755 million has been invested through the Florida Forever program to preserve about 500,000 acres near military bases and there are plans afoot to buy another 650,000 acres to preserve wildlife around military operations throughout Florida.
State Moves to Guard Rare Ecosystem
A Right To Property, With Permission From the State
The New Hampshire Supreme Court apparently agreed with the U. S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision when it ruled the City of Nashua is within its rights to use the state's eminent domain laws to take over the privately held Pennichuck water utility company. The trouble began after Pennichuck entered into an "Agreement and Plan of Merger" with Philadelphia Suburban Corporation (PSC) whereby Pennichuck was to become a direct and wholly owned subsidiary of PSC. Nashua city officials objected to the deal and consequently proceeded to adopt a resolution authorizing the City to acquire the plant and property of Pennichuck's water works system. The resolution was approved by the voters in January 2003 and the battle commenced, culminating in the Court's decision for the City. The Court agreed with the appeals court decision, which read in part: "all property is held subject to the sovereign's exercise of eminent domain." "Ultimately," stated the New Hampshire Union Leader, "there is one owner of all property in New Hampshire - the state."
NH Supreme Court Ruling a Setback
for Taxpayers
No. 2004-717: Supreme Court
of New Hampshire