Agenda 2030, Agenda 21 impact, BLM, ecology now, environmental impact, GO's (Government Organizations), life experience, NGO'S (non-government organizations), small community life

How the EPA separates landowners from their properties

This is an excellent article about Endangered Species Act (ESA) and how water plays a big roll in what EPA is doing. BLM is employing thes very same techniques. All of these same techniques have been being use by Land Trusts and ecology groups all across the west.

http://ppjg.me/2014/08/26/how-the-epa-separates-landowners-from-their-properties/

The PPJ Gazette

strip banner
new-logo25W. R. McAfee

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
On April 7, 2001, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation ignored state and federal law in the name of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and stopped water to more than 200,000 acres and some 1,400 canal-irrigated family farms near Klamath Falls, Oregon, plunging the community toward bankruptcy and devastating families.
Why? Because the bureau said two species of bottom-feeding suckerfish and a Coho salmon, in a reservoir the farmers depended upon might be “affected” if water was released during the current drought.

35600_1thmThe ESA had already been used to cut off water to a group of California farmers, causing their crops to dry up.
In Colorado, the forest service threatened another agricultural operation with a by-pass flow that would have resulted in an 80-percent loss of the dry-year water supply from a key reservoir, with a direct economic loss of between $5 and $17 million.
They also…

View original post 2,015 more words

Agenda 21 impact, BLM, ecology now, environmental impact, GO's (Government Organizations), life experience, NGO'S (non-government organizations)

Just Compensation…

The original intent of just compensation was exactly that. A Just-ified compensation for an eminent domain-ed property. This meant that going rate for property in the immediate area was paid. All assets of the property were taken into account. Develop-able and, timber, mineral rights, water rights all accounted for a compensatory asset.

Stated in our Constitution in the 5th Amendment that property shall not be taken without just compensation. It does not anywhere says compensation it states “Just Compensation”. Just compensation is “Fair Market Value” .

In today’s environment of takings the buyer seems to think that fair market value is the lowest price they are willing to pay. This is not “Just”. It also is not ethical or morally right. And in the case of big business should never be allowed to happen. The takings that are happening today are immoral done, unethically done and plain not justified. I have first hand knowledge as to how the non-profit groups do this. They will first enter an agreement usually verbally that they are willing to pay a set amount. In our case we set a price for our property. Then the group enters into an appraisal period to see what the “fair market value” is. This value is based on other sales in the are f equal property asset, in simplistic form. In the case or our property the non-profit had been operating in the area for some time and had appraised several other properties in the area lower than actual value which then lowered our property value. These same properties were base on other non-profit purchases. Get the picture. No timber was taken into account as value on the land. No develop-able property was taken into account. No improvements were taken into account.  The value of a potable water creek had no value. River frontage had no value. The barn and house had very little value.

The appraiser that was used  just so happened to be a big donor to the non-profit NGO that wanted our land. The same donor hired appraiser had already appraised other properties in the area. These same properties were used to identify  comparable properties to identify value. I see this as collusion. It may be,  completely legal, to conspire in this manner, but no matter which way you see it, this is still unethical and unfairly using the law to screw the public and TAKE land.

 

Agenda 21 impact, BLM, ecology now, environmental impact, NGO'S (non-government organizations)

Eminent Domain is next…

What I am about to say may or may not happen. We The People.. may or may not hear about it. During the mitigation process land needs to be acquired, to fulfill all the requirements. All environmental impact must be met prior to permits for building are approved.  In many cases mitigation cannot be completed unless land is physically acquired. If an out right purchase cannot take place then the eminent domain process takes place.

Eminent domain has been used in the media often in the last 15 years. This process has been very abused.

One thing every one must know is “THEY CAN USE IT, AND THEY WILL USE IT” .

For many years the eminent domain process was used for utilities and railroads, highways and sewer lines, etc. the American people would potentially agree that this is a need for all people. The problem with today’s Eminent Domain process is that it is being very broadly interpreted and very much abused. The abuse is not for The People it is being used to line the pockets of the few.

One broad interpretation of eminent domain  is: “public use” or “public utility”. These two terms seems to be descriptive enough to protect property rights, yet the statement that gets the broadest interpretation is “for the sole purpose of increasing municipal revenues.” This interpretation has opened a flood gate of eminent domain cases all across the country. We as Americans are having our land taken away with out any outcry from the left or right politician. The political arena (our government) think this is “A OKAY”.  After all if they can get revenue coming into their state, by any means, they think they will look like the hero. They have all the power which the politician crave and as a bonus more money in their pocket. Not a one of these politicians would admit to this desire for prestige and power. This insidious behavior is not easily defined. The American people are always told what they want to hear and then the behavior of the politician is opposite of what he/she says.

The eminent domain issue is just that insidiously being abused to further the politician. A revenue could be earned by some plant 100 miles away. The mitigation plan calls for the exact property with the exact environment, then it will be sought and acquired by eminent domain (at all cost and means). Harassment, threat and coercion is not out of the question.

The second requirement for eminent domain is compensation. “American courts have held that the preferred measure of “just compensation” is “fair market value,” i.e., the price that a willing” (eminent domain compensation) buyer to a willing seller. This is not a pressured deal. It is given without any coercion, tension, browbeating, bullying or intimidation. Unlike the Bundy case there has been lots of bullying.

In the past only government organizations can take land through the eminent domain vehicle. This is written in our constitution 5th amendment takings clause. “Just compensation” is defined as “highest and best possible use compensation. So if the land is perfect for development is should be appraised as such. If there is timber on the property it should be appraised as such.

The difference between what should happen and what is happening is abusive. The land can be taken by a 3rd party that is approved by the government. If there is land being used for mitigation. A corporation fulfilling their mitigation plan may need to “take”  land in order to acquire the permit to build. Non-governmental organizations have been given the power to eminent domain in order to meet a mitigation requirement.  These NGO’s are organizations like The Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, The Tortoise Group etc., etc. These groups are given money through grants to mitigate and acquire land for conservation and mitigation.

In many cases multiple projects will mitigate the same land. In the case of ENN Energy the mitigation is approximately $26 million. There are 2 more projects in Nevada and the mitigation plan looks the same, approximately $26 million.  Plus the corporation gets credited for mitigating their carbon footprint.

Just Compensation is not being given for the taking of land. If land can be taken without just compensation they will do it and they do.