Liberty
Matters News Service
February 26, 2007
Maryland Court Finds For Property Rights
The Maryland Court of Appeals has unanimously ruled that the City of Baltimore had no right to try to seize George Valsamaki's bar and package goods store to transfer to a private developer. The City of Baltimore filed a petition for condemnation and immediate possession and title on March 9, 2006. The Circuit Court granted the petitions on the condition Valsamaki didn't file an answer within 10 days. Valsamaki did. The Circuit Court agreed that Valsamaki was using the building for his business and denied the City's petition. The City appealed. Justice Dale Cathell wrote for the Appeals Court: "The city failed to provide sufficient reasons for its immediate possession of and title of the subject Property," wrote Cathell. "Without evidence [that the building presents a hazard to the public or needed for public use] there is no way to justify the need for immediate possession of the Property via quick-take condemnation proceedings." The Court noted; "Reverence is due the property rights clause just as is due the other great provisions of the Fifth Amendment. It is a fundamental right."
Maryland's High Court Disallows Baltimore's Property-Seizing Attempt
Idaho Ranchers Win Big for Western Water Rights
The Idaho Supreme Court has ruled ranchers who have grazed their livestock on federal lands before the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act hold instream water rights. The Idaho Supreme Court decision in Joyce Livestock Co. vs. United States of America also decides the LU Ranching Company water rights case filed by the Bill and Tim Lowry families. The court ruled that the ranchers had grazed the lands beginning in 1898. "Joyce Livestock's predecessors obtained water rights on federal land for stock watering simply by applying the water to a beneficial use through watering their livestock in the springs, creeks, and rivers on the range they used for forage," the Court said. The Supreme Court even went further and denied the United States' claims that it owned the water based upon its ownership and management of the federal lands. It held that they did not prove beneficial use under the constitutional method of appropriation. The Court threw out the lower court's ruling that the earliest priority date Joyce Livestock could establish for water rights was April 26, 1935, remanding that portion of the case for "a re-determination of the priority dates of such rights," with guidelines of how this would be decided. Unfortunately, however, the court denied the rancher's attorney's fees, saying the United States "did not act frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation in asserting its water rights claim."
U.S. Doesn't Hold Federal Rangeland Water Rights: Idaho SC
More Virginia Property Rights Abuses
What's going on in Virginia, home to patriots and presidents? The Virginian-Pilot published a series of articles that showed Virginia has developed a bad habit of snatching property from its citizens. A few examples: "The Supreme Court of Virginia in 2003 allowed Hampton to take far more land than was needed for a new road. The government used 20 percent of the property it took from Frank and Dora Ottofaro for the road, then leased the rest to the developer. Last year the Supreme Court permitted a condemnation by Alexandria to help a developer put a drainage culvert onto adjacent property even though the owner objected. The Board of Supervisors in Halifax County condemned one person's land at the request of his neighbor, who wanted it for a paved driveway. Now, state taxpayers are maintaining the mile-long road, though it serves only one family. During the construction of Route 221 in Bedford, the Virginia Department of Transportation used a new car wash as a staging area for its construction equipment, for a year, costing the man half his business. The owner sued for damages, but the judge wouldn't allow him to present the evidence and ruled he was not entitled to recover any money. Virginia was not among the nine states that passed constitutional amendments restricting condemnation for economic development purposes. We don't need to because we're a property rights state, was the explanation from government officials.
Property Rights Don't Halt Wrongs
Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife
The U. S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in April in a case that pits the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) against the Defenders of Wildlife. The argument is whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can transfer authority for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program to Arizona. Defenders say EPA failed to consider the needs of endangered species when it made the decision. It doesn't have to, say EPA and NAHB. "Section 402 (b) of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to approve state NPDES programs if nine specific criteria are met. None of those criteria mentions protection of listed species or the ESA." A lower court judge, denying a rehearing said, "courts cannot add conditions to the list" of criteria. "There is no logic to twisting a program designed to protect the waters of the United States to [protect] the pima pineapple cactus, a desert plant, and the pygmy owl, which is no longer listed as endangered," said Brian Catalde, a home builder in Southern California.