EXTREME CRISIS -- MIDNIGHT LAND GRAB IN THE HOUSE -- CARA

American Land Rights Association - Land Rights Network ^ | 11/15/02 | American Land Rights Association

[Geezerette]

Bump!

g

[isasis]

BTTT -

[isasis]

BTTT they are at it still - Big one this time Hope we can do something about this one

[Republic]

Doesn't sound like Bob Smith. How would such a bill foster his legacy? This is the ONLY senator who stood at the gates of Andrews Air Force base-TWICE-and was refused admittance BOTH TIMES, under direct orders from the DOJ, who controlled Andrews while Elian, Juan, his wife and baby were held prisoners there, and the DOJ was probably under orders from Gregg Craig ala billy clinton-major castro arse boosters.

[Sungirl]

Some people don't want to sell. They want the farm that's been in their families for years. Do you think it's right when the Government comes to your door and says "You're moving. Here's what we think your property is worth. Kiss your land good bye. Get out!"

They just did this to a whole community of people because the town wants to relocate a high school. People fought it for over a year...but alas..the town won...people put up banners, prtested...but the high school will be built. There is nothing wrong with the old one...and this will cause a huge traffic problem.

[wcbtinman]

New boss...same as the old boss.

[nomad]

Thanks for the tip, I`ll send an email now and call Monday. In these fiscally tight times, this kind of expensive radical eco-crap is criminal.

[Lancey Howard]

I need to know, in a general sense (not individual pork grabs) WHY Republican politicians would consider legislation like this. The scumbag Democrats I understand - - they strive relentlessly for a politically correct, socialist ant-farm nation, with government owning and controlling everything. But aren't Republicans supposed to go the other way?

Thanks in advance to anybody who can explain rationally why Republicans would support legislation like this, and why Bush would sign it.

[CWRWinger]

This is outrageous!! I'll contact my Congresscritters ASAP.

This next week I'm attending a "Land Grab" seminar. I'm sure this will be discussed.

[lneisone]

Can't be done without just compensation. What is the big deal?

San Diego County passed "multiple species habitation act" which sets aside 80 % of my property. I get the remaining 20% (I still get to pay taxes on the whole)

I wrote to the director of the program to ask if he felt that he was siezing my property without compensation and one of his staffers wrote back that that was "exactly" what they were doing.

[WriteOn]

Wouldn't do me any good. DeWine (RINO-OH) thinks CARA is a great idea because of all the money it will bring to Ohio.

[captnemo1]

2) permit SEIZURE of private property, and....
Can't be done without just compensation. What is the big deal?

Define, "just compensation". They tried this in Ohio. The idea was that the evil farmers might sell their land to evil developers. Who would build evil condo's and evil elietist shopping malls for the evil rich!

What to do? Why our local RINO DeWine came up with a great idea to empower the people! First grab the land from the farmers by eminient domain or envioromental impact.

Then pay the evil profit mongering farmers a fair [sic] price. Then sell the land to friendly, kind hearted, eco-friendly developers for up to 1000% more $ per acre.

The nasty profits could be just given to the state with a clear concience. Not only that! But the poor downtrodden under captialized friends of the state could get reduced rates on the land!

These friendly, nice developers, would in turn only build malls for the people and condo's for the benevolent overlords.

Yes, it would have been a win vs. win situation. Sadly those pesky voters saw this as theft by the state. Then they turned up the heat to the point where all the nice and truly good people had to crawl back under their eco-friendly limestone laminates.

Fair is whatever I say it is. - D. Dastardly

[farmfriend]

S.990, The American Wildlife Enhancement Act

By Senator Mike Crapo, (R-Idaho)

The U.S. Senate recently passed S. 990, better known as the American Wildlife Enhancement Act. The Act will protect private property rights by involving citizens, and state and local entities while expanding opportunities for wildlife protection. Unfortunately, some have sought to compare S 990 to a bill I voted against—the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) S 990 , as opposed to CARA, does not seek to acquire land through condemnation or federal purchases of private property. It gives landowners and state local control over wildlife and habitat issues under the model of the time-tested Pittman-Robertson grant program supported by sportsmen and sporting groups nationwide. And I will fight against any attempts to link the two bills in a conference committee.

Critics confusingly call S 990 “Son of CARA,” an erroneous characterization of the bill. I voted against CARA, but support S 990 because it brings needed stature to states’ rights and private property rights by providing money directly to states and private landowners for relief from the unfunded mandates of the Endangered Species Act. States and citizens can address wildlife and habitat needs in their way, not the federal government’s. S 990 provides compensation to property owners for improving habitat on their land.

Here are the facts:

• No Federal Land Acquisition: S 990 contains no provision for federal purchase of private property. State land acquisition is already only done under limited circumstances, and S 990 makes those restrictions even tougher. Between 1991 and 2001, less than five percent of the Pittman-Robertson fund, the existing law under which these programs will be implemented, was used for land acquisition; none of this was federal. S 990 is an authorization bill, and funding must be debated annually by Congress to ensure that the legislation is achieving its goals of protection private property rights and improving habitat. No Outer Continental Shelf revenues are used to fund this bull.

• No Land Condemnation: There is no provision, as critics charge, that the “government can grab your land for any reason.” S 990 does not contain the word “condemnation” and does not authorize land condemnation.

• State and Local Controls: S 990 moves decision-making away from federal control to state leaders, local citizens and property owner. It adds new revenue so states and landowners can improve habitat for both game and non-game species, and rightfully moves those land-use decisions to the state and local levels.

• Help for Private Property Owners: Through compensation for habitat improvement in S 990, private property owners who might otherwise face federal regulations and threats from the federal government will have new and critical financial assistance. If a property owner wants to let land lie fallow for wildlife, he can be paid to do so. If a property owner wants to plant willows to aid salmon recovery, he can now do so and be paid for it. Too often in the past, the government has expected habitat improvement at private expense. S 990 requires local consultation, which will result in local support for improved and compensated habitat for wildlife and threatened or endangered species.

My record in Congress includes attempts to get direct financial payments to private property owners who suffer a loss in property valuation due to threats from federal agencies over endangered species or other wildlife issues. That bill did not pass, but this measure has the critical bi-partisan support to push relief for landowners closer to reality.

• Limits On Who Is Involved: S 990 carries specific language barring funding for any effort that seeks to promote an “anti-hunting or trapping” agenda.

• Who Can Buy Land: Of the bill’s four titles, land acquisition is authorized in just two titles. In Title I, states and territories of the United States are the only entities eligible to acquire property for the purpose of wildlife conservation. Title III allows a state to purchase land to conserve fish, wildlife, recreational or ecological resources with the caveat that the state has collaborated with the public, and local communities and individuals support the acquisition. Now conservation or environmental group any use the funds in this bill to acquire property.

• No Federal Reviews: Opponents argue that S 990 exempts state and local activities from review by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Yes, that is the point: keep federal agencies and bureaucrats out of the process, allowing states to control how wildlife conservation dollars are spent in their areas. This bill puts funding in the hands of states and property owners and others who are interested to assist in wildlife conservation and related efforts.

My voting record regarding private property rights and states’ rights is very solid and I have worked closely and successfully with private property advocacy groups in shaping several pieces of federal legislation.

My support of S 990 is heavily influenced by my belief in the power of collaboration. I have long believed that resolution of environmental and resource conflicts will be based on the degree of real collaboration between state, local, and federal agencies enormous conflict. Decisions made with authoritative participation by those who live closest to the area of concern succeed with public support.

Most believe that the basic objectives of the Endangered Species Act, and other similar federal Acts are well intended. However, the fact is that the implementation of these laws is often heavy-handed, usually unilateral, and rarely successful, can be dangerous to private property rights, and is highly influenced by political agendas that go far beyond the objectives of original legislation. State and local governments, and especially private citizens, are put on the defensive and have few, if any, resources with which to either fight federal initiatives or pay for their implementation. S 990 provides resources and a structure with which these groups can either manage local situations or prevent federal action. Under this bill, we will have some resources to initiate action rather than constantly be reactive and defensive.

S 990 is a grant program to put states, local governments, sporting and conservation groups, and property owners looking to assist wildlife in chare of issues regarding wildlife and endangered species. I remain committed to private property and states’ rights, and the fact is that this legislation strengthens both.

[farmfriend]

There is a lot of info here, including info I recieved from a Republican backing the bill.

[hoosiermama]

BUMP for later read.

[lewislynn]

The fact that they would even consider this shows how far our country has fallen.

Don't worry, everything will be fine now, nothing like you've described could ever happen now that they, the less tax, smaller, less intrusive government Republicans are in charge.

[farmfriend]

If you are working on property rights, you must read this. Make sure you read the info in my post 53 as well.

[madfly]

Action alert!

[Eastbound]

"Title III allows a state to purchase land to conserve fish, wildlife, recreational or ecological resources with the caveat that the state has collaborated with the public, and local communities and individuals support the acquisition. Now conservation or environmental group any use the funds in this bill to acquire property."

So the feral gummint allows the state, huh? That's like saying that Pop gives permission to junior to beat the hell out of the rest of the kids and steal their toys.

[Eastbound]

Add: -- 'So he doesn't get his own hands bloody.'