LD1810: Relief When Govt Regs Devalue Private Land

31 posts / 0 new
Last post
thistle
Offline
Joined: 08/15/2009 - 9:46am
LD1810: Relief When Govt Regs Devalue Private Land

Maine lawmakers set to hear 'radical' takings bill
By Steve Mistler, Staff Writer
Published on Tuesday, Feb 21, 2012

Lawmakers Tuesday will begin reviewing a new takings bill, LD 1810.

[S]upporters, including real estate developers, Maine Forest Products Council.., Maine Farm Bureau, believe the proposal is in keeping with the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that says landowners have the same constitutional protection — the right to compensation — for regulatory takings as they do in land seizures via eminent domain.

Pete Didisheim, with...Natural Resources Council Maine, said LD 1810 is..."radical...."

http://www.sunjournal.com/news/state/2012/02/21/maine-lawmakers-set-hear...

thistle
Offline
Joined: 08/15/2009 - 9:46am
Bill would allow Maine

Bill would allow Maine property owners to sue if regulation cuts value of property
By Abigail Curtis, BDN Staff
Posted Feb. 20, 2012, at 7:37 p.m.

AUGUSTA, Maine — “It will be unlike any bill adopted anywhere in the United States,” Pete Didisheim, ...Natural Resources Council Maine, said.... “These laws have been defeated in the past for a very good reason. They’re expensive. If you’re actually going to pay compensation claims, it could be millions, or tens of millions of dollars.”

[T]hose in favor say...current laws do not compensate landowners...when their property has been affected by regulatory actions....

http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/20/politics/bill-would-allow-maine-pr...

Watcher
Offline
Joined: 03/23/2008 - 12:32pm
This seems like a no-brainer

This seems like a no-brainer to me. If the public, via their elected reps, take or reduce the value of my property because it is a necessity for the public, then pay for it! What is the problem here?

Roger Ek
Online
Joined: 11/18/2002 - 1:01am
Rogue elements in the DEP

Rogue elements in the DEP want to take hundreds of miles of valuable shoreline away from the Maine families who own it. In our town is is 16 miles. In some towns it is far more. This bill will put a price tag on reimbursement to those families who have lost their investments.

I watched men build a boathouse in the lake back when it was legal. Then the state made new boathouses illegal. Since that time they have gradually pushed landowners back away from the shores they own. Now the DEP wants people to build 250 feet back and have just a narrow winding path down to the shore. There are not many areas in the woods where you can see 250 feet or over 80 yards. The goal of the DEP is to have a passing kayaker not be able to see your camp and for you not to be able to see water from your camp.

Butch Moore
Offline
Joined: 11/20/1999 - 1:01am
It's all about tourism and

It's all about tourism and selling the "Maine experience" Roger. Can't have the tourists seeing the "natives" while they're up here, can we? Another example is the a lake Downeast that has recently been made catch & release only for bass, thereby eliminating the 4 family oriented bass tournaments on it this year, while still leaving live fish as bait for the guides and their sports. Gotta get rid of the "bubbas" somehow to create the "experience" for the "sports," right? I mean, who want to see bass boats while they're being ferried around in their Grand Lakers?

mainemom
Offline
Joined: 03/09/2004 - 1:01am
Terrilyn Simpson at Maine

Terrilyn Simpson at Maine Wire: Committee works to sort out ‘takings’ bill

A hundred or more citizens filled the hearing room and overflowed to the hallway and into rooms on both sides of the judiciary hearing room, waiting hours to speak, with the first two given over to the testimony of designated experts and lengthy question and answer sessions.

Selfish louts, insisting on just compensation for regulatory takings. What do they think, there's a constitutional right or something?

Fear not, we have the execrable NRCM and Didisheim to defend the progressive authoritarian regulatory establishment. My favorite of his reason to oppose the bill: "the difficulty of the legislature passing protective legislation if the bill passes."

Sounds like a great reason to vote "ought to pass."

Joan Nass comes off looking wise and fair in this article.

Roger Ek
Online
Joined: 11/18/2002 - 1:01am
Meanwhile, over at Ag, Cons.

Meanwhile, over at Ag, Cons. and Forestry, Northern Maine was gobsmacked by the Republicans who advanced LD 1798 and cut the governor off at the knees. I went down to be a witness. I took notes. I took photos and I'll report the results over on the LURC thread when I get back from a business appointment.

Naran
Offline
Joined: 10/06/2004 - 12:01am
Bangor Daily

Bangor Daily News.

EDITORIALS

Leave ‘takings’ bill
Posted Feb. 24, 2012, at 5:06 p.m.

It’s one thing to see the value of real estate plummet when the economy tanks...But having value decline... because state government enacted a new regulation rightly inspires outrage.

But allowing landowners to sue the state to recover value lost... proposed in LD 1810... is the wrong fix. Legislators ... should push for a better vetting process of regulations so...“takings” are few and far between.

[url=http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/24/opinion/editorials/leave-takings-b...

agarrity3
Offline
Joined: 02/23/2011 - 12:39pm
Some truth on the matter from

Some truth on the matter from a guy who helped get it where it is today...

‘Takings’ bill was carefully crafted to help small landowners
By Clark Granger, Special to the BDN
Posted Feb. 29, 2012, at 5:13 p.m.

I have found recent statements in the press and at the public hearing on the regulatory takings bill, LD 1810, misleading on many counts. Contrary to the opinions of some, the primary beneficiaries of LD 1810 would be small landowners, not large landowners.

Rest of the story,
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/29/opinion/takings-bill-was-carefully...

ewv
Offline
Joined: 04/19/2000 - 12:01am
Watcher Tue, 02/21/2012 #2:

Watcher Tue, 02/21/2012 #2: "This seems like a no-brainer to me. If the public, via their elected reps, take or reduce the value of my property because it is a necessity for the public, then pay for it! What is the problem here?"

The viros know that their preservationism and snob zoning are not "necessary for the public", they don't want to have to pay for what they take, and they don't want to acknowledge that they are taking anything because they reject the whole concept of private property rights. They want to use their lawyers to take more, not have to defend against being slowed down.

mainemom
Offline
Joined: 03/09/2004 - 1:01am
Is AG Schneider opposed to

Is AG Schneider opposed to this bill?
if so, why?

TimUwe
Offline
Joined: 09/20/2011 - 10:42am
I had to pause for a moment

I had to pause for a moment after reading the headline. Then after recovering from a momentary fog, I remembered property rights is a thing of the past. How nice that someone in Augusta is at least being polite about stealing.

agarrity3
Offline
Joined: 02/23/2011 - 12:39pm
I got this today...effort to

I got this today...effort to gut LD1810 is underway.

Sent: Tue, Mar 6, 2012 8:06 am
Subject: LD 1810 - Takings Update

All –

On Thursday, the Judiciary Committee held its first work session on the takings bill, LD 1810. This is an update on that work session.

At the work session, amendments to the underlying bill were presented by Representative Cushing to account for some of the issues raised in public hearing (attached). Representative Moulton also presented an amendment that proposes creating a legislative committee to meet twice a year to develop recommendations regarding fairness of land use laws as well as promoting the current mediation program (attached). This proposal provides no real relief to landowners.

This bill is being worked again in Committee this Thursday, March 8th, at 1:30 pm and could be voted on this week. It would be very helpful if you or your membership could connect with Representatives Beaulieu and Fossel to urge them to support Representative Cushing’s amendment.

· Representative Michael Beaulieu
207-784-0036
mike@mikeformaine.org

· Representative Les Fossel
207-631-0219
fossel@oldhouserestoration.com

Thanks for your support of this issue.

Can see Rep. Moulton's amendment here... http://porme.org/RegulatoryTakings.aspx
I haven't entered Rep. Cushing's amendment as it retains the gist of the bill.

Hay Farmer
Offline
Joined: 12/05/2011 - 1:53pm
I got this urgent email in

I got this urgent email in regards to LD1810 being voted on in the Senate today. It has the contact information of 4 senators that could be wobbly.
You know what to do in November if things don't go the way it should.

"Call Maine Senate now to support minority report of LD 1810

With all the pressure on property owners over the years who have been forced to give up a portion of their bundle of rights to other interests through various forms of imposed land use restrictions, there is finally a minority report attached to a bill which would provide some relief to these "takings" of property value. But we must act quickly. Here's the story:

Today is the final day of voting on LD 1810 "An Act To Implement Recommendations of the Committee To Review Issues Dealing with Regulatory Takings" < http://www.mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=280043775 >. This is a regulatory takings bill. For those who think Mainers who lose 50-percent or more of the value of their land at the hands of state regulations should have their day in court, should be compensated for the taking -- they'll want to support the MINORITY report on LD 1810. I know it doesn't go far enough, but it's a good move in the right direction!

LD 1810's MINORITY report barely squeaked by last night in the House. It is up for a vote today in the Maine Senate. As of this writing it appears there are not enough votes in the Senate for the MINORITY report to prevail, but it's close. Your calls can make the difference - so thank you for calling now.

Senate Republican Office: 287-1505
Senate Democratic Office: 287-1515

If you head a group with a membership who cares about property rights, please let them know now to call the numbers above. If you have particular stroke with a certain senator, be sure and contact him/her. Unfortunately, we can't depend upon ALL Republican senators to vote for the minority report. Four Republicans are leaning toward the Majority Report supported by the environmental groups like NRCM and that ilk. They are Senator Chris Rector, Senator Roger Katz, Senator Earle McCormick, and Senator Thomas Saviello. When you call the Republican number, leave word for all Republicans, but mention especially Senators Rector, Saviello, Katz and McCormick, urging them to change their mind and support the landowners who pay taxes, not the non profits who don't! In other words, urge them to support the Minority Report of LD1810. Remember, your call can make the difference!"

Hay Farmer
Offline
Joined: 12/05/2011 - 1:53pm
LD 1810 apparently was not

LD 1810 apparently was not addressed yesterday as expected, but is listed 1st on today's Senate calendar http://www.maine.gov/legis/senate/Documents/calendar/htframe.htm

Hay Farmer
Offline
Joined: 12/05/2011 - 1:53pm
It is my understanding that

It is my understanding that the Senate has tabled LD 1810 until the Senate reconvenes on May 15th.

Considering that it is prohibited by the Constitution, it must be surprising to most landowners, that some Special Interests argue that it is fair and just for the State to be able to take up to 99% of your property value through regulation without compensating you for your loss.

In these partial quotes from Anthony Garrity’s testimony to the Judiciary Committee, he makes it clear that if in the future, we decide to take his family’s stored wealth in property, then we should follow the Constitution and all share in the cost.

“If the people of this state feel so strongly that someone’s belongings must be taken to protect some vital aspect of the state then they should be willing to pitch in”

“Our Constitution, the framework of laws drafted by the founders to protect the citizens of this country from overzealous government, is seemingly not good enough; the statement “private property shall not be taken for public uses without just compensation” is apparently not clear enough.”

The rest of Mr. Garrity’s testimony is here.
http://www.themainewire.com/2012/03/citizens-lawyers-offer-differing-vie...

Clark Granger who served as a member of the Legislative Study Committee has provided an honest and well written overview of LD 1810 in his explanation published in the BDN.
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/29/opinion/takings-bill-was-carefully...

According to the House Roll Call vote on LD 1810, most Democrats representatives voted against and most Republicans voted for the Minority version of the Bill.

The following Democrat representatives joined Republicans in voting to provide this very limited protection to Maine’s Landowners;
CLARK of Millinocket
HANLEY of Gardiner
PILON of Saco

The following Republican representatives joined with the Democrats in voting against Landowner protections provided by the Bill;
BEAULIEU of Auburn
KESCHL of Belgrade
MOULTON of York
RICHARDSON of Carmel
STRANG BURGESS of Cumberland

http://www.mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/rollcall.asp?ID=280043775&ch...

Since most Maine Landowners would be unhappy with loosing up to 99% of their personal wealth stored in their property’s value, it is not difficult to imagine that Legislators on the wrong side of this issue may soon face election consequences.

It will be interesting to note how our State Senators vote on this Bill in May. Until then, it is important to let them know what their constituents want for an outcome.

BlueJay
Offline
Joined: 04/18/2005 - 12:01am
Hay Farmer, thank you for

Hay Farmer, thank you for posting this information. Let's hope the Senate does the right thing.

Hay Farmer
Offline
Joined: 12/05/2011 - 1:53pm
You are welcome BlueJay! This

You are welcome BlueJay! This is a serious Constitutional and moral issue that should not be taken lightly.

Regardless of Party, any Representative or Senator who ignores what is right and caves to the Special Interests, will not get my vote in the Primary or in November. Additionally, I will actively campaign for their defeat in re-election attempts. I encourage everyone to do the same.

Stephen Carmichael
Offline
Joined: 06/19/2008 - 8:05pm
If we send troops to die

If we send troops to die defending the Constitution, any costs associated with depriving someone of their property rights and liberty are welcome. It should act as a deterrent for any legislation having an impact on ones land.

Virgil Kane
Offline
Joined: 12/15/2005 - 12:44pm
from Anthony Garrity’s

from Anthony Garrity’s testimony to the Judiciary Committee, quoted above:

[color=grey][i]the statement “private property shall not be taken for public uses without just compensation” is apparently not clear enough.[/i][/color]

Speaking of the clarity of the language, is it not clear that this constitutional language is talking about property being taken for [i]public uses[/i]? How does a government regulation that prohibits an owner of private property from using that property in some way become a "public use"?

pmconusa
Offline
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
The Constitution allows

The Constitution allows government to take land for public use. They don't have to define public use. If the government wants to encumber land by altering the deed to prohibit some right of the owner not prohibited by the deed, it has no authority to do so. It can however buy the through its power of eminent domain, place the restriction in the lease and resell the land if it wants. Encumbering the land without this process is illegal and if violated by government should be disallowed by the courts.

A man's home is his castle and unless it was encumbered when it was bought he has every right to do with it what he chooses. If that is no longer the case, we have evolved into a police state. For example, if you drive a car only on your own property you cannot be fined for not having a license. It is why farmers don't have to license their tractors unless they drive them on the public roads.

agarrity3
Offline
Joined: 02/23/2011 - 12:39pm
It becomes "public" when the

It becomes "public" when the theft of my rights and value are based on this..The pre-amble for the Natural Resources Protection Act.

"The Legislature finds and declares that the State's rivers and streams, great ponds, fragile mountain areas, freshwater wetlands, significant wildlife habitat, coastal wetlands and coastal sand dune systems are resources of state significance. These resources have great scenic beauty and unique characteristics, unsurpassed recreational, cultural, historical and environmental value of present and future benefit to the citizens of the State and that uses are causing the rapid degradation and, in some cases, the destruction of these critical resources, producing significant adverse economic and environmental impacts and threatening the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the State."

Butch Moore
Offline
Joined: 11/20/1999 - 1:01am
Takings Bill Takes Bad

Takings Bill Takes Bad Turn
Submitted by George Smith on Thu, 05/03/2012 - 08:15

Unless proponents of the takings bill step up to support changes in their proposal, the issue is likely to die in the Maine Senate.

Here’s the situation.

Two versions of the bill emerged from the Judiciary Committee. The majority report limits action to a mediation process and legislative scrutiny, for landowners who believe more than half the value of their land has been taken by new state laws or rules. The minority report adds a litigious process that allows the landowner to sue the state.

http://www.georgesmithmaine.com/articles/georges-outdoor-news/may/2012/t...

J. McKane
Offline
Joined: 05/22/2005 - 12:01am
‘Takings’ bill misrepresented

‘Takings’ bill misrepresented in Brownie Carson column
By Rep. Kimberly Olsen

A recent column in the Times Record featured the headline, “Olsen took wrong side on ‘takings’ bill.” It referred to my vote for LD 1810, a bill that protects the rights of property owners while carefully considering environmental concerns and the public interest.

The writers, including Everett “Brownie” Carson, are entitled to their opinion, but as the legislator singled out for attack, I need to set the record straight.

They start right off with a charge that the regulatory takings bill “would harm Maine’s environment, jeopardize Maine communities and cost millions of dollars to Maine taxpayers.” Clearly, if results like that were likely, or even probable, I would have voted otherwise. But as is too often the case in political debates, facts are twisted or ignored.

The regulatory takings issue goes to the heart of private property rights. Specifically, it clarifies the recourse available to a property owner who experiences a property value loss of at least 50 percent due to a land use regulation. That 50 percent loss is the threshold that must be reached before a landowner can seek a remedy. Mr. Carson never mentioned the 50 percent threshold in his article, perhaps because it would have undercut his argument.

America’s founders clearly understood that private property is the foundation not only of prosperity, but also of freedom itself. Thus, through the Constitution, they protected property rights – the rights of people to freely acquire, use and dispose of property. The Constitution safeguards property rights mainly through the Fifth Amendment’s Takings or Just Compensation Clause: ‘‘nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.’’

There are two basic ways government can take property: (1) outright, by condemning the property and taking the title; and (2) through regulations that eliminate or limit its uses, leaving the title with the owner—so-called regulatory takings.

In the first case, involving eminent domain, land is usually taken for a public use, such as a road, and the property owner is paid for the land. In the second case, the owner is often not compensated at all for his losses, and when he is, the compensation is inadequate.

LD 1810 raises the question of whether we consider the individual and his basic constitutional rights when drafting new environmental policy. The best answer lies in striking a balance between the two, and this is precisely what LD 1810 does. This bill asks us to consider those who will be negatively affected by new regulations.

The majority report referenced in Brownie Carson’s column would not have achieved the goal of providing protection for landowners. While it promotes the mediation program and creates a special subcommittee for legislative review of regulations, Rep. Les Fossel’s minority report does both of those things and adds a legal cause of action. This is critical, because when the landowner has no leverage, there is no real incentive to help him or her.

I see the cause of action as a last resort—a device that tells the state that they must mediate in good faith and tells the Legislature that it must carefully consider the landowner’s position when a regulation is up for consideration.

If both mediation and legislative review fail to remedy the situation, a landowner lawsuit may result in a very narrow variance, applying to that litigant’s parcel only. LD 1810 does not call for entire regulations to be struck down. More importantly, this bill applies only to future laws. All current environmental regulations will remain untouched. The flood of litigation that ensued in Oregon when a takings bill was passed came as a result of that bill’s retroactive nature.

Also, LD 1810 applies only to state laws, not to municipal or county regulations, nor does it apply to laws regulating nuisances or health and safety.

Some have said that this bill is a handout to big landowners and corporations. The Fossel amendment includes a $400,000 cap on any damages paid out, ensuring that this bill is designed to protect the little guy. There will be no windfalls for big, corporate landowners.

Mr. Carson’s accusation that I would bow to special interest groups is both inflammatory and untrue. I believe that good work comes as a result of reasonable conversation and mutual respect. I do not, and will never accept anyone strong-arming me to vote in any way—ever. As always, my priority is to be the voice of the people of Phippsburg, Harpswell and parts of West Bath. My allegiance is to them, not to special interests.
###
State Rep. Kimberly Olsen (R-Phippsburg) serves on the Marine Resources Committee

Posted with permission from the author.

Roger Ek
Online
Joined: 11/18/2002 - 1:01am
"There are two basic ways

"There are two basic ways government can take property: (1) outright, by condemning the property and taking the title; and (2) through regulations that eliminate or limit its uses, leaving the title with the owner—so-called regulatory takings."

There in a nutshell is the reason that there is not one single acre of forested paper company land in Maine today. The Maine legislature made it impossible to manage the lands they owned. It was LD 2286 and it happened under Angus KIng. If a corporation has an expensive asset they cannot manage or control, no board of directors will allow the company to keep that asset. I predicted that if Angus King's bill passed that there would be no paper company land in Maine within 25 years. It happened much faster than that. It was all gone in less than eight years. Fraser was the last holdout and they nearly went broke trying to preserve a tradition that had been taken away from them.

"Mr. Carson’s accusation that I would bow to special interest groups is both inflammatory and untrue. "

The environmental industry regards all property owners as "special interest groups". They tell us so:

"We reject the idea of private property."
Peter Berle, President of the National Audobon Society

BlueJay
Offline
Joined: 04/18/2005 - 12:01am
There are some things that

There are some things that cannot be said often enough, Roger, espcially now with so much hanging in the balance.

I applaud Rep. Olsen for this straight talk. Great editorial.

agarrity3
Offline
Joined: 02/23/2011 - 12:39pm
This doesn't sound

This doesn't sound good.

5/15/2012 Senate; TAKEN from the Table by the President.
On motion by Senator HASTINGS of Oxford, Bill and accompanying papers INDEFINITELY POSTPONED , in NON-CONCURRENCE. (Remarks Made)
Ordered sent down forthwith for concurrence.
http://www.mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/dockets.asp?ID=280043775

Roger Ek
Online
Joined: 11/18/2002 - 1:01am
LD 2286 was taken from the

LD 2286 was taken from the table on the last night of the session some 14 years ago now. It was enacted at 10:30 PM in the dark of night on the last day of the session. After being defeated by the voters twice in referendum elections "Son of COMPACT" was passed and sent to Angus King for signature. He signed it before midnight.

Now we are faced with the final bill in the series. LD 1798 would make LURC bigger, stronger and meaner. It has been passed by both houses and is on the table. If Kevin Raye takes it off the table and sends it for signature it would keep the hated CLUP in place forever. Kevin Raye made sure that the environmental industry was represented on the LURC study commission. The flip side of that coin is that he made sure there were no property rights advocates who know the history on that commission. The 125th session is winding down and history shows that the most dreadful assaults on liberty happen as they go out the door.

mainemom
Offline
Joined: 03/09/2004 - 1:01am
Call me dense, but with a

Call me dense, but with a Republican majority, I fail to understand why the legislature is siding with the likes of Brownie Carson instead of the proponents of the reasonable legislation defended so capably by Rep. Olson.

This will be an epic fail that reinforces the RP faction's portrayal of the Maine GOP as part of the problem.

Bruce Libby
Offline
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Ahhhh Questions: Where is

Ahhhh
Questions:
Where is most of the property that this bill would have effected? Answer above Volvo line.

Who is running for a congressional seat above that line? Answer: Senate President.

Why is there a perception of differences between electorates' desire for change w/ a majority and results ? Answer: Things like this.

J. McKane
Offline
Joined: 05/22/2005 - 12:01am
This will be an epic fail

This will be an epic fail that reinforces the RP faction's portrayal of the Maine GOP as part of the problem.

It boils down to a few individuals in the Senate. Most Republicans were strongly in favor of the takings bill but sadly there were enough against to join the Ds and kill the bill. It is a shame that not even a watered-down version passed.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012
SUPPLEMENT NO. 10

SENATE PAPERS
Non-Concurrent Matter

(1-1) Bill "An Act To Implement Recommendations of the Committee To Review Issues Dealing with Regulatory Takings"
(H.P. 1334) (L.D. 1810)

Minority (5) OUGHT TO PASS AS AMENDED Report of the Committee on JUDICIARY READ and ACCEPTED and the Bill PASSED TO BE ENGROSSED AS AMENDED BY COMMITTEE AMENDMENT "B" (H-922) in the House on April 11, 2012.

Comes from the Senate with the Reports READ and the Bill and accompanying papers INDEFINITELY POSTPONED in NON-CONCURRENCE.

Log in to post comments