Posted on 08/24/2016 12:46:27 PM PDT by Enchante
The national monument designation has faced opposition in the region.
Gov. Paul LePage released a statement Tuesday afternoon condemning the land donation.
"That's one way to get out of paying taxes to the state of Maine," he said. "It's sad that rich, out-of-state liberals can team up with Obama to force a national monument on rural Mainers who do not want it."
The governor did not stop to talk to reporters Wednesday afternoon after an event in Portland, but his office released a statement.
“President Obama is once again taking unilateral action against the will of the people, this time the citizens of rural Maine,” LePage said in a statement. “The Legislature passed a resolution opposing a National Monument in the North Woods, members of Maine’s congressional delegation opposed it and local citizens voted against it repeatedly.
“Despite this lack of support, the Quimby Family used high-paid lobbyists in Washington, D.C., to go around the people of Maine and have President Obama use his authority to designate this area a National Monument. This once again demonstrates that rich, out-of-state liberals can force their unpopular agenda on the Maine people against their will. Quimby is already well known for preventing hunting, snowmobiling, ATVs, forestry and other traditional activities on her land, and a National Monument will most likely restrict these uses even more. It is my understanding that for those few acres where hunting would be allowed, Quimby has attempted to recreate the restrictions found in the bear baiting referendum that the Maine people roundly rejected as recently as 2014. If average Mainers don’t realize by now that the political system is rigged against them by wealthy, self-serving liberals from away, this is a serious wake-up call. The fix has been in all along.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wmtw.com ...
It’s great. :)
Kinda hard to close down Acadia National Park.
No need to, just Shut Down the FEDS and have the State take over. ARREST Any Federal Agent that enters the State without Written Permission beforehand.
EVERY STATE HAS THIS RIGHT GUARANTEED TO THEM IN THE US CONSTITUTION!!!
If the legal owner wanted to donate their own land to the feds, I have no problem w/that. Not what I would do.
I’ve always said, instead of tyrannizing the rest of us w/eco regulation, folks who want to protect land should pool their money together to acquire land they want to protect.
On the flip side, if loggers want to buy land and mow it down, so be it. Property rights are a foundation of freedom. We’ve already lost a lot of property rights in the name of “safety” and “public interest”.
If the gov had stepped in via eminent domain to accomplish this, I’d have a problem with it. Not the case here.
English common law has always allowed deeds to be transferred w/restrictions. So the donor could’ve actually saved quite a bit of money simply by donating that property to me instead of lobbying the feds to put it under their domain.
A new National Monument is not “free” to the public, no matter how it comes about. It is going to cost the federal budget a great deal of money over the years. Plus, it brings a large federal govt presence into northern Maine that the legislature, governor, and public majority all strongly object to.
Correct, the donation is only in the sense of the consideration for the transfer of the deed. Fed mgmt means taxpayer money.
As long as the gov has the authority to designate a monument or park, that process can be used. I actually would like to see the government get out of the “park” business. Gov needs to acquire property to perform functions, but beyond that I would rather see freedom in action, which also means someone may do something with the property others won’t like.
I don’t see what the large fed presence is, other than acreage. Parks and monuments have some Dept of the Interior personnel, but they seem to be relatively few in number per site.
I lean pretty far to the right on property rights. That means I should be able to do what I want with my property even if the governor, legislature, and public majority object to it.
It also means that others may do something I don’t like w/their property. I can accept that tradeoff because I believe, in aggregate, everyone is better off that way because it represents freedom.
I acknowledge that not many rights are “absolute”, meaning there is a balance of rights, e.g. my right to free speech doesn’t include shooting people as an expression of my ill feelings for them.
If they wanted to donate their land to a lumber company, I wouldn’t have a prob w/that either.
Leaning far to the right on property rights has nothing at all to do with whether or not the federal govt should assume ownership and operate a “National Monument” — that is a quite separate public policy debate.
For instance, suppose I own some rather marginal property of little historical or scenic appeal to anyone. Just because I have every “right” to donate this property to the federal govt does not mean the govt policy should require the Dept of the Interior to accept my property and pay tax dollars year after year to operate there.
My “right” to dispose of the property as I see fit does not confer any right for me to demand that the federal govt accept my property, nor does it give the govt any inherent reason to want to accept my property. The latter depends entirely upon whether it is well justified for the federal govt to create a new “National Monument” and operate it for the public.
Agreed, they are separate issues, except that the property right does apply in this case.
The owner had the desire to give the land to the feds. The owners lobbied, and got the feds to take it. There was no “demand”. It was a willing exchange.
So property rights, coupled with the current authority held by the feds to declare land as a park or monument, came into play here.
Whatever the gov has the authority to do, there will be folks lobbying to gov to take action in that regard. Gov authority includes expenditures taken to affect those actions. That’s why it’s a good idea to limit what authority gov has.
So while I would rather not see the gov pick up another park or monument, I in fact would like to see them dump all parks, not just this one. Nevertheless, if gov has that authority and some eco-sap wants to hand over their property in that fashion, then that’s that.
To me, the “solution” here is to take away gov’s authority to declare land as park or monument.
The solution is NOT to say someone can’t do something with their land, that includes the transfer of it.
“English common law has always allowed deeds to be transferred w/restrictions.”
You have it backwards, fruser1. English common law ended the dead hand doctrine.
Maine hasn’t voted for a Republican since Bush1 because they don’t exist. We have a great governor though.
This will make the economy in Maine even worse. People now go to Northern Maine to fish, hunt, snowmobile, etc. Now they can’t. That Vile Quimby women started Burts Bees in Maine and sang Maines virtues. She then moved her business to make more money, buy 30% of the State and give it to the Feds.
It also does not mean the US President “ought” to unilaterally declare a National Monument, imposing his judgment to over-ride all of the objections from the public, the state legislature and governor, and the state’s Congressional delegation.
We have too many National Monuments and National Parks already, not too few, imho. The federal govt is broke, deeply in the red. There is no justification for ANY new commitments that are not of absolutely extraordinary necessity. Clearly this case does not meet that kind of high bar for new federal budgetary commitments.
Not what I’m talking about.
Common example in place today - Home Owners Associations.
Those are restrictions placed on the deed and run with the land.
I can transfer title myself with a restriction, such as to a church, for as long as the property is used for religious purposes. I can also say the property may not be improved (to make it like a park).
This is known as “fee simple determinable” title and is part of common law.
I hear you, but complaining about a president doing what they have authority to do is like complaining the sun comes up in the east. The property owners could “bypass” the good people of Maine because of the existing federal authority.
As long as he actually has the authority to do it, he can. To declare a “monument” does not require congressional action. As with all gov power, it eventually gets abused. In this case, the only abuse is that not enough people, apparently, believe the property should be a monument.
I don’t think anything O does is wise. I look at this situation, shrug and say “this is what happens when you allow the gov to declare parks/monuments.”
I began posting on this because it looked like folks were complaining as much about the exercise of property rights as about the feds. I stepped up to defend property rights.
“This is known as “fee simple determinable” title and is part of common law.”
Try selling your land with deed restrictions that bar blacks from buying it.
This land being sold with restrictions that it may only be used as a park is deeply flawed. Any judge worth two bits would rule that restriction as a violation of common law property rights.
Correct, you cannot transfer with an illegal restriction. It is not an “absolute” right. Racial prejudice in land transactions has been illegal since 1866.
Dedicating land for use as a park is not illegal.
Being that parks exist, you can safely conclude that judges have supported such restrictions.
You can sell land with all the deed restrictions you want, but you can’t force the buyer to honor those restrictions. Land comes with a bundle of rights. One of those to legally use the land as you see fit.
“Dedicating land for use as a park is not illegal.”
Of course it’s not illegal. The buyer can choose to honor deed restrictions, but the buyer is not required to do so.
Correct again, but the transferor, or their heirs, can go to court to get title back. If they demonstrate the restriction has been violated and the judge agrees, they win.
My grandfather always used to say “You don’t get arrested for stealing, you get arrested for being caught.”
“but the transferor, or their heirs, can go to court to get title back. If they demonstrate the restriction has been violated and the judge agrees, they win.”
Only if the judge is a member of the 10th century Church of England.
Imagine a piece of property owned by 10 people over a century. Each owner adds a deed restriction to that property. The “dead hand” of 10 different owners reaches out and demands that each restriction be honored by the present owner. Then it’s no longer private property.
What if one deed restriction conflicts with another deed restriction? Which restriction takes precedence?
Common law does not recognize “dead hand” deed restrictions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.