Liberty
Matters News Service
August 2, 2006
NAFTA Super Highway Fleecing America
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), touted as the means of improving the lives of Americans through free trade with Mexico and Canada, was the first step in plans to create a North American Union similar to the European Union, according to Kelly Taylor, an Austin-based writer and producer of a politically based TV talk show. The new alliance will be served by a super highway that will run from Mexico through the United States, into Canada. The first leg is the Trans Texas Corridor (TTC) to be built and maintained by private foreign contractors and plans call for similar super highways throughout the United States and into Mexico and Canada. For the most part, the public has been kept in the dark about the massive scope of the projects until recently. On June 29, 2006, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced S. 3622, the "North American Investment Fund Act" creating a fund to pay for highway infrastructure throughout Mexico. Section 4 reads: "The Fund shall make grants for projects...to construct roads in Mexico to facilitate trade between Mexico and Canada and Mexico and the United States." President Bush, along with Mexico's Vicente Fox and Canada's Prime Minister Martin set the wheels in motion when they signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) back in 2005. Taylor claims the SPP's "…ultimate aim is the dissolution of the United States into a North American Union patterned after the increasingly dictatorial regional government now running the European Union. Henceforth, under this plan, the borders between our nations will be incrementally erased in favor of a joint 'perimeter' around all three countries." After years of secrecy, the American people are finally seeing how they are being conned into building and paying for a super highway across North America.
Coming Through! NAFTA Super
Highway
NAFTA Superhighway RFID Card for
US Citizens
Super-Corridor to
Oblivion
Ohio Supreme Court Rules For Property Owners
The Ohio Supreme Court unanimously ruled last week that the City of Norwood, Ohio, unconstitutionally seized the properties of private landowners to replace them with higher tax-generating economic development. The homeowners filed suit to protect their homes and businesses from seizure by the city, which had plans to turn the land over to private developers claiming the properties were in a "deteriorating area." The Ohio high court found that the cities ordinance which defines "deteriorating area" was vague. "We hold that although economic factors may be considered in determining whether private property may be appropriated, the fact that the appropriation would provide an economic benefit to the government and community, standing alone, does not satisfy the public use requirement …" The Court also ruled that "courts shall apply heightened scrutiny when reviewing statutes that regulate the use of eminent domain powers." The decision means Carl and Joy Gamble will be able to return to their home of thirty-five years. "We haven't had the heart to see our home...since the City and the developer forced us out and fenced it off," said Carl Gamble.
OH Supreme Court Sides with Private
Property Owners
OH Supreme Court Rules
Unanimously to Protect Property from Eminent Domain Abuse
Ninth Circuit Reverses Winmill
The Ninth Circuit unanimously reversed a March, 2004, decision by Idaho Federal District Court Judge, Lynn Winmill. Winmill wrote 106 pages explaining why the BLM's decision to take "no action" resulted in creating "action" that triggered the consultation requirement under the Endangered Species Act requiring property owners to first consult with the BLM before using their Act of 1866 ditch rights of way. Western Watersheds Project v. Matejko involved six rights-of-way across BLM land in the Upper Salmon River Basin. The Ninth Circuit somehow found clarity after reviewing the wisdom of Winmill and ruled that BLM was under no obligation to consult with U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding use of the rights-of-way in question because "the federal agency had taken no action to fund, permit or use the rights-of-way and had no general ongoing regulatory responsibility with respect to their use." So, if your following all this, "no action," once again means "no action."
Court Decision Lifts Endangered Species
Act Threat to Rights of Way Across Federal Lands
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit
Oregon's Measure 37 Sparks Similar Initiatives
Property right advocates fed up with local governments' heavy-handed land use regulations are placing initiatives on this fall's ballots similar to Measure 37, the property owner's relief measure overwhelmingly approved by Oregon voters in 2004. Measure 37 said that when land use regulations reduce the value of property, the government must compensate the owner or waive the rules. Washington State's Initiative 933 would force governments to exempt landowners from land use regulations enacted after 1995 or compensate them for diminishing their property values. Sources outside the states are offering encouragement and money to gather needed signatures for the property relief measures. For example, a report by The Reason Foundation gives tips on replicating Measure 37, while Americans for Limited Government is providing money to fund the initiatives. Opponents are crying foul even though those same tactics have been used for years by environmental groups. A Montana-based political group that has spent $1 million on initiative campaigns is being challenged legally by a Helena attorney, who may try to force disclosure of its financial backers. Opponents of the "Nevada Property Owners' Bill of Rights" initiative have filed suit to keep the measure off the ballot, citing "devastating consequences the implementation of this initiative would have on the taxpayers and citizens of this state."