Who has a right to your property?
The right of a private owner to use land and its resources is being systematically stripped from the American system of government. In its place has grown a socialist system of "community" control of private property, enforced by government. This transformation has already had severe social and economic consequences and has placed America on a course that will inevitably follow the failed Soviet experience. More comments from Henry Lamb on property rights at
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38506
Sustainable Development, Unsustainable Freedom
by Henry Lamb
Excerpt:
Charlotte, N.C., is one of hundreds of cities undergoing this transformation to sustainability. A regional commission is being formed to set policy for a 16-county area of North and South Carolina. Under the guise of coordinating transportation needs and controlling air pollution, the regional plan that emerges from this commission will go much further, limiting or extinguishing the freedom of people subject to the commission's jurisdiction.
Shelby County, Ala., has been undergoing this same kind of transformation for many months. The plan includes strict urban boundaries around towns and villages, forcing land prices and taxes to skyrocket. Outside the boundary, only one home per 160 acres is allowed.
In Richland County, S.C., the transformation has been under way since the late 1990s. The plan would create "villages" for people and prohibit landowners from using their own land for homes. This plan goes much further. It would, according to the Thoreau Institute:
... place numerous other restrictions on residents throughout the county. They must get permits to do anything, from holding a yard sale – no more than two per year – to putting up a front yard fence – no more than four feet tall. New homes must have front porches and meet other requirements that will add tens of thousands of dollars to their cost – not insignificant in an area where 77 percent of housing is worth less than $100,000.
Similar restrictions on individual freedom are being imposed all across the country in the name of sustainable development . . .
Freedom and sustainable development are mutually exclusive ideas. Freedom encourages people to do what they want to do; sustainable development dictates what people may and may not do. Freedom empowers people to control government; sustainable development empowers government to control people.
Full commentary at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38705
Government Meters On Private Water Wells Coming
Paying Tax On Water You Already Own
http://www.rense.com/general53/wasa.htm
Eminent Domain: Being Abused?
This week CBS’ "60 Minutes" reported: Just about everyone knows that under a process called "eminent domain," the government can (and does)seize private property for public use - to build a road, a school or a courthouse. But did you know the government can also seize your land for private use if they can prove that doing it will serve what's called "the public good?" Cities across the country have been using eminent domain to force people off their land, so private developers can build more expensive homes and offices that will pay more in property taxes than the buildings they're replacing. Dana Berliner and Scott Bullock are attorneys at a libertarian non-profit group called The Institute for Justice, which has filed suit on behalf of the Saleets against the City of Lakewood, OH. They claim that taking private property this way is unconstitutional.
"This is a nationwide epidemic," says Berliner. "We have documented more than 10,000 instances of government taking property from one person to give it to another in just the last five years."
Full story at
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575343.shtml
Government Usurps More Of Our Property Rights
By Marilyn Barnewall
Excerpt:
There are numerous examples of how our government abuses the property rights of people.
For example, the Southwestern Illinois Development Authority (SWIDA) has quick take powers and abused them a couple of years ago. They wanted to take property from one business owner and give it to another business.
The Illinois Supreme Court said “no.” The good news is, people are beginning to win more lawsuits that involve illegal takings of their property.
The Christian Science Monitor reported over 10,000 pieces of property have been seized by cities for private developers. Some are the abuses are:
In Atlantic City, an entire black middle-class neighborhood was condemned and destroyed to make way for a tunnel to a new casino that was never built.
Bremerton, Washington removed a woman in her 80s from her home of 55 years for the claimed purpose of expanding a sewer plant, but gave her former home to an auto dealership.
West Palm Beach in Florida condemned a family’s home so that the manager of a planned new golf course could live in it.
Freedom does not exist unless the right to self-ownership is recognized. When people are denied their rights to own themselves and their possessions, they are denied the most basic of freedoms.
. . . Today, large stores and malls are evidently considered "for public use." These “public uses” supersede the rights of the elderly, the ill, the poor and all other property owners.
More at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39408
America Online Can Fire Gun-Owning Employees Utah High Court Rules
Self-defense took a big blow this week when the Utah Supreme Court upheld the right of America Online (AOL), America’s largest on-line service provider, to fire three employees whose firearms were stored in the trunks of their cars in the parking lot of an AOL call center in Ogden, Utah. In a decision that diminishes rights guaranteed under both the Utah and the U.S. Constitution, the court acknowledged the individual right to keep and bear arms, but said the right of a business to regulate its own property is more important!
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_2379224
Eco-Feudalism in the Adirondacks
The ability of Adirondack residents to use their own property is at the whim of an appointed commission entirely unaccountable to the people.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/08-09-2004/environmentalism.htm
Bush Administration Sells Out Property Rights
During his 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush repeatedly promised the nation that “Help is on the way.” Property rights victims, especially those in Midwestern and Western states, cheered the President’s message and came out in droves to support him on Election Day. Finally, there would be an end to the reckless Clinton regime that treated landowners like second-class citizens and barriers to radical green utopia. Or would there?
The Endangered Species Act is still thriving as the number one tool of federal agencies and green extremists to pry landowners from their property. Government land grabs continue unabated. Private property rights protections are nowhere to be found. And the green dream of a National Heritage Area program has seen its most momentum in a decade.
It’s been four years since Bush took office and property rights advocates are still waiting for that promised help. In fact, forget help. It would be nice if the White House would just stop working against us . . .
. . . the Bush administration decided to openly promote a National Heritage Area program and pull the rug out from under LaGrasse and property rights advocates nationwide.
Read the full commentary at http://www.newswithviews.com/Knight/peyton.htm
At last, a property rights victory!
Landowners across the nation can breathe a deep sigh of relief because of a decision rendered by the Michigan State Supreme Court July 30. The court reversed a 1981 decision that has allowed state and local governments to take the private property of thousands of landowners and then give or sell it to other private entities, reports Henry Lamb. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39846
How 'wetlands' bureaucrats crush private-property rights
Mr. Rapanos' case is but one in a parade of horror stories where bureaucrats define and declare the presence of wetlands on private property as they see fit. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40002
Homeowners Sue Over Property Tax Inspections
Homeowners who claim they were punished for protecting their property are trying to overturn a state property tax inspection law. The group sued the attorney general and members of the New Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeals in federal court on Wednesday over a 1994 law that allows cities and towns to inspect all homes for property-tax assessment purposes. Those who refuse to allow inspectors into their homes lose their right to appeal their assessments. The plaintiffs argue that the law violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable government searches and seizures.
"Every person's home is their castle, unless they live in New Hampshire," said Bert Gall, a lawyer with the Washington-based Institute of Justice, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of two Hollis homeowners and a Hudson couple. "Under New Hampshire law, it is easier for the government to search the homes of law-abiding citizens than it is to search the homes of suspected criminals."
. . . The Institute of Justice says 13 states make it difficult for homeowners to succeed on appeal if they don't go along with interior inspections, but only New Hampshire, Minnesota, Nevada and Wisconsin take away the right to file an appeal.
More at
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2004/260804homeownerssue.htm
Government Grabbing Homes—Who Will Be Next?
by Henry Lamb
Be it ever so humble, there's no place like home – unless the government wants it.
Until 1954, a man's home was his castle, where no one could enter without an invitation or a warrant. Then, under the watchful eye of the U.S. Congress, the city of Washington, D.C., decided to exercise eminent domain to take land from poor blacks to redevelop a blighted area. The action was upheld by the Supreme Court [Berman vs. Parker (1954)].
The city of Detroit expanded on the idea in the 1980s and exercised the power of eminent domain to take the homes and businesses of 4,200 people so General Motors could build a new automobile plant in an area known as "Poletown." The action was justified on the basis of increasing tax revenue and stimulating the local economy. The Michigan Supreme Court upheld the decision.
Soon, municipalities across the country began using the newfound power of eminent domain to take land from one private owner and sell it to another private owner to increase tax revenue and stimulate the local economy.
In July, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Poletown decision, which effectively eliminates the practice in Michigan.
The city of New London, Conn., used eminent domain in 2000 to take 90 acres of private riverfront property in an effort increase tax revenue and stimulate the local economy. Most of the owners acquiesced, but ten owners said no, and their case has now been accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court (Kelo vs. City of New London).
Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer, argues passionately in a Washington Times column that the power of eminent domain applies to the middle class and wealthy in new London, Conn., just as it applies to the poor blacks in Washington, D.C.
But he misses the point.
Government is authorized to take private property by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for "public use" – not for public benefit. What is legitimate "public use"? Pretty good guidelines are offered in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution: "... forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings. ..."
If government remains empowered to take private property for whatever it perceives to be a public benefit, the concept of private property will vanish; the United States will be no different from a communist nation where government decides how all property must be used.
Take, for example, the Everglades Restoration Project in South Florida. Government has taken thousands of acres of private property, uprooting hundreds of private owners, to develop a project, not for government use, but which government says will result in a public benefit. The so-called benefit being the restoration of the Everglades to its "natural" condition.
Like the people in New London, most of the affected people gave up when the government declared its intention. Some who fought spent their life savings in legal fees, only to see their homes bulldozed into oblivion. There is one man, however, who still believes that his humble home is his castle. He has issued no invitation to the government, and he believes the eminent domain proceeding to take his land goes way beyond the power granted to government by the Constitution.
The government wants Jesse Hardy's 160 acres, not for a "... needful building," but to restore a "sheet flow" of water across the Everglades. Ironically, according to engineering studies, the sheet flow will not touch Jesse's land because of its elevation. But they still want his land because, according to Nancy Peyton of the Florida Wildlife Federation , which has promoted the project from the beginning:
It is remote from any public facilities. It is remote from schools and from even a supermarket. It is not a good location for people to be, and the best and highest use [of Jesse's land] is to restore it.
Neither Nancy Peyton, nor the governments of Florida or the United States should have the power to take private property from an individual because they decide that "... it is not a good location for people to be," or because they want to use the property for some purpose that suits their vision.
Nancy Peyton, and the governments of Florida and the United States should heed the words of founder John Adams, who correctly declared that:
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is no force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40950
Disabled Vet Sues Agencies Over Land-Grab
Owner of 160 acres in Florida says government not following own rules
Jesse Hardy, the disabled vet who has battled government to stay on his Everglades-area land, has charged 13 officials in six state and federal agencies with multiple violations of law in a 43-page complaint filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court.
Officials of the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the South Florida Water Management District are named in the complaint.
The complaint alleges "ongoing violations of federal law and the United States Constitution" during the eight years the agencies have been developing the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, or CERP, and "requests relief in the forms of declaratory judgment and injunctive relief."
The complaint arises because the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has filed a petition to condemn 160 acres owned by Jesse Hardy. The DEP contends the land is necessary to complete the CERP. Hardy contends the state has failed to demonstrate how or why the land is needed, as is required by law.
The massive multi-billion dollar CERP involves 52 different projects across South Florida, designed to restore the Everglades to its "pre-settlement" condition. Hardy's land is located in one of those projects, known as South Golden Gates Estates, in Collier County.
The CERP enabling legislation, the Water Resources Development Acts of 1996, and 2000, set forth "restrictions and conditions" that must be met before implementing the various projects, which include compliance with all relevant existing legislation, such as the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.
Among the pre-implementation requirements is the completion of a Project Implementation Report, or PIR, which establishes the "cost-effectiveness and engineering feasibility" as well as the maximum cost of each project. Once completed, each PIR must be approved by Congress before implementation.
Florida's DEP received grants of "at least $38,000,000" to acquire 52,000 acres that constitute the South Golden Gate Estates. Hardy's land is among the last parcels to be acquired.
The complaint alleges that acquisition of the land is, in fact, implementation of the project, for which a Project Implementation Report has never been completed or approved by Congress, as required by the enabling legislation.
The complaint also alleges the acquisition of 52,000 acres and the removal of residents constitutes a "major federal action that significantly affects the quality of human environment," which requires the development of an Environmental Impact Statement. No EIS has yet been prepared, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
Nevertheless, the state is moving forward with the condemnation and acquisition of Hardy's land for a project that "has never and may never be approved."
Specifically, the complaint alleges the federal and state government agencies have not yet completed a PIR, or EIS, have not formally approved the South Golden Gate Estates project, have not consulted with the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential impacts to threatened or endangered species, have not complied with Florida law, and have not submitted the SGGE project to Congress or the Florida Legislature for approval. Therefore, "the project is not a legally approved and authorized project which may be implemented."
The complaint further alleges that the U.S. Constitution forbids the taking of private property except for "public use." One of the functions of the PIR and the EIS is to establish that the proposed project is an essential "public use." Since these documents have not been prepared, there is no evidence that Hardy's land is essential to the project.
Hardy has independent engineering studies that demonstrate his land is not needed to achieve the goals of the project, but without the formal PIR and EIS procedures, his studies are ignored and are not considered in the decision-making process.
"We're disappointed that the federal government can ignore federal law and proceed with this project without a Project Implementation Report or an Environmental Impact Statement," said Karen Budd-Falen, the lead attorney in this case.
"Federal agencies and environmental organizations have used these same laws to stop hundreds of private projects across the nation. But these laws have been conveniently ignored by both state and federal agencies, as well as the environmental organizations that support the project."
The Budd-Falen Law Offices, located in Cheyenne, Wyo., specialize in land and resource use law, and are working with the law firm of Forman, Hanratty & Montgomery in Fort Lauderdale.
The complaint asks for:
1. A declaration that the Corps or Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the South Florida Water Management District has violated, and are continuing to violate, the Water Resources Development Acts of 1996, and 2000, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Florida State Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.
2. A declaration that the COE, FWS, DEP, and SFWMD cannot implement the SGGE Project prior to fully complying with all applicable state and federal laws.
3. A preliminary and/or permanent injunction prohibiting the COE, FWS, DEP, and SFWMD from implementing the SGGE Project prior to fully complying with all applicable state and federal laws.
4. An award of costs and attorneys' fees.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41303
The Selling Out of America
Currently, governments own about 42 percent of the total land area in the U.S. Land trusts own an additional unknowable amount of land. Fast-forward 50 years. At the current rate of "preservation," governments and land trusts will own most of the land, and by 2100, private property will be a distant memory, warns Henry Lamb. In this new world, people will have to live on property that is owned by the government – or a land trust. Farmers will have to farm land that also is owned by the government or a land trust, and industry will have to operate using resources that are publicly owned. Get the picture? He who owns the land controls its use – and gathers its wealth.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41770
http://makeashorterlink.com/?E12D220F9
Mortgage Servicing Fraud
The American Dream of homeownership is being turned into a NIGHTMARE! This nightmare is orchestrated by a growing number of well known, corrupt and ruthless mortgage servicers who manufacture defaults on performing loans to then flood the account with illegal fees strategically designed to STEAL the borrower's equity and ultimately the property.
http://www.msfraud.org/
The Fight Against Government Land Ownership
by Henry Lamb
Excerpt:
"Why does the federal government own 65 percent of all the land west of Denver and less than 2 percent of the land east of Denver? Who cares?" asks Henry Lamb. "Everyone should care. The federal government was not created to be the owner of the land; it was created expressly to get the 'right of soil' out of the hands of a king – that is, out of the hands of government."
...The federal government owns about 98 percent of the land in Alaska and about 86 percent of Nevada land. Overall, the feds own 65 percent of all the land west of the 100th meridian. This fact makes a mockery of the Equal Footing Doctrine that was so important to the founders.
Full commentary at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43824
Homeowners Association Sells Woman's House
Excerpt:
Pamela Bernhardt was close to completing renovations on a house she owned and hoped to sell. She had installed a new roof, new granite tops in the kitchen and new tiles in the bathroom.
Earlier this month, she arrived at the house on the 14200 block of Swallowfield in southwest Houston and found a small, yellow note stuck to the front door.
The handwritten note said that the house had been sold at a foreclosure sale seven months earlier. The local homeowners association had sold the house, valued at about $250,000, saying Bernhardt failed to pay a $420 assessment fee.
"It was so devastating," Bernhardt said. "I was just stunned."
Bernhardt's situation was another example of the excessive power of homeowners associations and the need to reform the use of foreclosure sales to collect fees, state leaders and activists said Wednesday…
The practice of homeowners associations threatening foreclosure has become much too common, said David Kahne, a lawyer who has represented homeowners against foreclosure.
More at
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3158104
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.
Full article at
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property
http://stevequayle.com/News.alert/05_Global/050623.seize.homes.html
Human Rights vs. Property Rights
In the wake of the Supreme Court's recent eminent domain decision, some have tried to claim a distinction between human rights and property rights. In fact, the two are very much intertwined.-Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/wwilliams.htm
Eminent Domain And The New Orleans Land Grab
The disaster in New Orleans has created an opportunity for land speculators and developers alike, much in the way corporations see the third world.- Portland Indymedia.org
http://www.rense.com/general67/landgrab.htm
Florida City Considers Eminent Domain
Florida's Riviera Beach is a poor, predominantly black, coastal community that intends to revitalize its economy by using eminent domain, if necessary, to displace about 6,000 local residents and build a billion-dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051003-122623-2136r.htm
When Your Home Becomes Another’s Castle
By Henry Lamb
Excerpt:
The American dream that has motivated generations is the hope of owning a home, a sanctuary where the family is safe and the future secure. Millions of people who have scrimped and saved to realize this dream are now faced with a nightmare as sustainable development is imposed upon them.
Florida flourished as "snowbirds" flocked to the warm climate to retire. For every millionaire who bought a condo on the beach, a hundred retired factory workers and shopkeepers bought a mobile home in a retirement park to enjoy their remaining days fishing and playing shuffleboard with their neighbors.
Some of these retirement parks were created and operated by municipalities. Others were private development projects in which the residents owned their mobile home, but rented the lots. Now, as the planners' vision of sustainable development crashes across these communities, many of these retirement villages no longer fit the plan. Residents are being forced to find new living arrangements. The land on which these mobile home parks are located can produce substantially higher tax revenues if the mobile homes are replaced by high-rise apartments and office buildings.
Options for these people are few. A single-family home is out of the question. The median price of a single-family home in Florida has more than doubled in the last five years, from $119,600 in 2000, to $248,700 in 2005, according to the Florida Association of Realtors.
It is almost impossible to find a vacant lot in Florida zoned for a single mobile home. Lines drawn on planning maps to limit urban sprawl have forced the price of available land into the stratosphere. If a lot can be found, the cost is prohibitive for a retiree who lives on a fixed income.
The residents of Anchor North Bay MPH in Oldsmar, Fla., found eviction notices posted on their doors recently. The park, one of many throughout the state facing a similar fate, is to become the site of a hotel and business complex, which is consistent with the expanded "sustainable community" plan.
Residents of Harbor Lights MHP on Boca Ciega Bay were given the opportunity to buy their park. The price: $45 million, or $100,000 from each of the 450 residents, almost all of whom sank their life savings into a mobile home and live on Social Security.
The grand visions of sustainable communities are indifferent to the impact sustainable development may have on real people. Riviera Beach, Fla., is planning to use its eminent domain power to take nearly 400 acres, displacing 6,000 people, to allow developers to build an upscale waterfront yacht club and business complex.
All across the nation in community after community, the idea that a man's home is his castle is an obsolete concept. The right to private property has been effectively extinguished. When government can take whatever it wants, justified by the claim that the taking results in a "public benefit," the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is, essentially, erased.
Full commentary at
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47227
Property rights, as most people think they know them are non-existent today.
What I have learned at www.suijuris.net over the last year and a half has been the most freeing process of my life.
I found out that the government that I was duped into believing was in control of my life was really just the man behind the curtain, and I pulled the curtain open, with God's help.
For more info, email me, or visit http://www.suijuris.net
The U.N.’s Global Land Grab
The SAMAB "interagency" management structure is an excellent example of how professional bureaucrats have been able to bypass elected policy-making bodies of government to implement their own vision of how land use should be managed. Policy by professionals, rather than policy by elected officials, is one of the first principles of sustainable development.-Henry Lamb/WorldNetDaily
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49100
http://millennium-ark.net/NEWS/06_USA/060306.UN.land.grab.html
The ‘Specter’ of Condemnation Hangs Over All Property
It's unfortunate for property owners that the battle for the right to own and control their land has fallen on the shrugging shoulders of Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA). The Senator is Chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, which will decide the fate of the Property Rights Protection Act, (S.1313). That's why the bill's future doesn't look promising.-Tom DeWeese/MichNews.com
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_12035.shtml