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.

 

Advertisements

Mitigation plan for solar farm in Nevada…

So we have some interesting revelations in the Nevada Solar Farm and the information that is on the mitigation plan. First what you must know is in the past when there has been an endangered species located on a piece of land, it has been a big controversy. Usually the “save the whatever bunch” come out in droves. Yet on this issue they have been extremely quiet and extremely absent.

The Desert Tortoise is resident on the land that will be used for the solar farm. They are thriving and doing well. BUT, and here comes the BUT, if the tortoise is relocated the land can be used. Yes I said relocated. In the case of the Spotted owl this species was not relocated in order to log. All logging had to stop. The endangered species act required the logging to no longer take place in the area defined by the “scientists” of the ecology bunch.

So we see the bottom line is that the mitigation fee for a 30 year plan will be $3,000,000.00 yes million.

A mitigation action plan is usually put together by NGO’s, GO’s and public input. Did the public have much if any input to this plan? So where is and how did a national conservation area get identified?

The following is taken directly from the Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone

 

Proposed Mitigation Actions and Locations.

The Gold Butte ACEC is preliminarily recommended as the best recipient location for regional mitigation from the Dry Lake SEZ. This ACEC is located 32 miles (51 km) east of the Dry Lake SEZ

The total cost of affecting the protection of this
ACEC for 30 years, the expected term of a solar development right-of-way, is about $9 million. The
Gold Butte ACEC is about 350,000 acres, and the cost is about $25.92 per acre. The total mitigation fee
expected to be collected for the Dry Lake SEZ if full build-out of the 3,591 developable acres in the
SEZ occurs is approximately $6.6million (see Section 2.6).
Enough for now but ask yourself how much money does it take to save a desert tortoise. How many lively hoods are changed forever so that the Kyoto agreement is complete and how much land in the US has to be taken so that other countries can have enough carbon credits? How much money does conservation really require?
In any given situation when land is involved follow the money. Follow the money and you will find an under current of money that seems endless. Look closely at the mitigation plan, study it and you will find an enormous amount of money flowing into some pockets. It is not a drip it is a flood.

Trade off…

Anytime there is a controversial plan for something related to energy the ecology groups and earth-firsters come out in droves. They will create an environment of controversy enough for the different companies to bend a little. They (big companies) have their own requirements when doing any project. The biggest one is their mitigation plan. In plain English how much land will they set aside to offset the amount of land that they use for their project along with how much land will be affected by doing business. If they don’t buy land outright to put into conservation themselves they may donate the money to a mitigation bank that is being steward’s by a trust (i.e. non-profit). Mitigation banking was established in the early 90’s, to satisfy a U.N. policyon environment. Makes it real easy for big business to satisfy EPA policy just pour some money into a NGO that stewards land???

I saw this take place live on the Columbia River. This issue started with need for the Columbia river to be dredged. The Columbia River normally gets dredged for maintenance. This time was different, they said that the river needed to be dredged deeper than ever before. Now why would it have to be dredged deeper. Then the announcement was made, if 4200 acres of ditched a diked flood plain was returned to the lower Columbia estuary, then it would be safe to dredge the river.

The 4200 acres was to save the salmon. The purchasing of land for salmon recovery took off like a rocket. This would make it sustainable for salmon. (see the word sustainable).  For the next 5 years NGO’s working with GO’s started every project they could dig up, to save the salmon. They also bought land like crazy, (only if they could buy it for nothing) even with unethical business practices, to get it.

With save the salmon moneys 4200 acres did not have to be purchased, as long as 4200 acres of floodplain were returned to the lower Columbia estuary. Often times this meant buying a piece of land and creating a flood plain that also flooded other Peoples land.  This accomplished big business moved in and announced the building of a Liquid Natural Gas terminal(for the loading and discharging LNG in bulk). The LNG ships needed the river to be deeper. The land that was flooded all on the Washington side of the river. And FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission)chose the location on the Oregon side , for the terminal. Trade off, Trade off, Trade off.

The mitigation plan complete for the LNG terminal and how much land would be affected by the LNG ships as well as the operation of business at the terminal. All is safe for the fish and everything is then sustainable.