Farmer wins ordinance case
The Daily Republic
- An Aurora County zoning ordinance that limited the number of
animals allowed at animal-feeding operations caused his clients to
lose their dairy farm. And it could cost the county a tidy sum. Before
the ordinance went on the books, Thompson Farms had started its plan
to increase the size of its dairy. But he said the ordinance prevented
the Thompsons from following through on plans for which they had
invested millions of dollars. They were forced to sell their farm.
When the matter went
to court. A circuit court judge ruled in favor of the Thompson Farms'
claim and ordered a jury trial to set the damages owed. The
Circuit Judge ruled that Aurora County committed "substantive due
process violations and inverse condemnation." Inverse condemnation
occurs when a government takes or damages private property without
paying just compensation. The judge found that this was an unlawful
act, that it destroyed the dairy and destroyed the Thompsons'
property.
Mississippi Passes Eminent
Domain Restrictions
JACKSON -- Gov. Haley
Barbour said Monday he will veto legislation that would bar government
from taking property through eminent domain and using it for
private purposes. Under the old rules, government takes private
property and owners have little recourse.
House Speaker Billy
McCoy, said he expects the House to override the veto. McCoy
said legislators are usually reticent about taking on a veto override
vote, which requires a two-thirds majority, but "this is an issue the
House feels very strongly about, personal property rights."
Opponents of the
legislation say government needs the power to condemn land that can be
converted into valuable, job-producing property. Supporters say
eminent domain should be restricted to avoid forcing landowners to
sell property some have held for generations. "Property rights go back
about as far as anything in this country," McCoy said.
Court Denies
County's Land Use Limits
A state appellate court has overturned part of a Washington State
County's controversial land use ordinance that required rural property
owners to leave at least half their property as natural vegetation --
a decision that dismayed environmentalists but gave hope to land
rights advocates.
The appeals court decision was cheered by some rural landowners,
and particularly by members of Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights,
which has fought the ordinance for years and filed the lawsuit.
The most controversial part of the ordinance, called the clearing and
grading section, requires rural landowners to keep 50 to 65 percent of
their land in natural vegetation. The goal was to protect the
environment, including watersheds and wildlife habitat, from the
impact of wall-to-wall development. It also stirred up passionate
opposition.
The appeals court agreed with the property owners group that the
blanket restrictions on clearing and grading in the ordinance were too
uniform and instead should be determined on an individual basis.
In its ruling, the appellate court said "because the clearing
limitations of the ordinance fall within the score of an indirect
'tax, fee, or charge' on development the county has failed in its
burden to show that the limitations fall within any of the statutory
exceptions."
One possible unintended consequence to this decision is that some
property owners may face higher restrictions than those currently in
place.
Water rights stay with property
PHOENIX AZ - The Arizona
Supreme Court has ruled that groundwater rights can't be
withheld when property is sold in rural areas not subject to state
groundwater regulations. The justices unanimously
overturned a January 2008 decision in which the state Court of
Appeals ruled that state law permits a property owner to keep
commercial groundwater rights for property when it is being sold. The Supreme Court said its
holding applies to property outside of "active management areas"
regulated by the Department of Water Resources. The case is from Yavapai
County and stemmed proposals to sell groundwater rights associated
with a Chino Valley ranch.
County
puts hold on Wood-burning Boiler Ordinance
CEDAR
RAPIDS - The Linn County Board of Health backpedaled Thursday
night on a proposed ordinance that would ban many outdoor wood-fired
boilers. Under a barrage of criticism from about 80 people who
showed up to speak on behalf of the wood-fired boilers, the Board of
Health delayed action on the ordinance and promised to consider
adding a grandfather clause. Owners of the boilers — public
health officials estimate there are 200 in Linn County — said they
have felt like a persecuted minority as the regulation has taken
shape in recent weeks. Several spoke at the public hearing last
might, often to cheering and rounds of applause. "The thing that
scares me the most about this is just the intrusion of government
into our lives," said Steve Ciha, who lives near Central City. "If
you're going to do this, you've got to figure out how you're going
to pay these people for their investments." Typically, wood-fired
boilers cost at least $8,000, but save roughly $2,000 per year in
heating bills. They are legal in Linn County, and several owners
said they vetted them thoroughly before buying one.
