Hrc 3019?

[sweeney]

Donate the land to the GNF for plots and public use

 

[johnr]

So its a done deal now?

 

[arrowdem]

i think this post lands under political... just sayin

 

[PrairieGhost]

I have a friend that sold a couple of sections of the land we talk about. Not that great, but his dad had enough money to buy six sections of land near Woodworth. They were paid two to three times what the land was worth, now they want it back. Have you ever heard the term Indian Giver? It comes from the culture where a fellow could give something to someone, but a month later they want it back. I guess landowners along the Missouri are not that different.
What are these fools doing trying to make us vote democrat. My God they have no brains. It was sold these leeches have no more right to it than anyone else.

- - - Updated - - -

Made my calls. I think they know I'm not happy. This crap is corruption as bad as the liberals. Farm Bureau donates to Cramers campaign and he slips them basement bargain land. Trump needs to flush the entire swamp.

Edit: I seen that on the national level Cramer supports this bs too, so I also called his office.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Pretty sure this is how the vote went down on the 28th, not like what was posted earlier............ my senator voted no while his name appears as a yes vote on previous posts.........

HCR 3019: SEN. KREUN (Energy and Natural Resources Committee) MOVED that the
amendments on SJ pages 908-909 be adopted and then be placed on the Fourteenth order
with DO PASS.

REQUEST
SEN. ARMSTRONG REQUESTED a verification vote, which request was granted.
The proposed amendments to HCR 3019 were adopted on a verification vote.

SECOND READING OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
HCR 3019: A concurrent resolution requesting the Army Corps of Engineers exercise
nondiscrimination in public land management and develop, in cooperation with the
North Dakota Board of University and School Lands, a process consistent with this
resolution to allow prior owners, their heirs, and their successors to repurchase
eligible land within the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin project.

REQUEST
SEN. GRABINGER REQUESTED a recorded roll call vote on the adoption of HCR 3019, as
amended, which request was granted.

ROLL CALL
The question being on the final adoption of the amended resolution, which has been read,
and has committee recommendation of DO PASS. The roll was called and there were
25 YEAS, 20 NAYS, 0 EXCUSED, 2 ABSENT AND NOT VOTING.

YEAS: Armstrong; Bekkedahl; Bowman; Casper; Clemens; Cook; Davison; Erbele; Hogue;
Kannianen; Klein; Kreun; Laffen; Larsen, O.; Lee, G.; Luick; Myrdal; Oehlke; Osland;
Poolman; Roers; Rust; Vedaa; Wanzek; Wardner

NAYS: Anderson; Campbell; Dever; Dotzenrod; Grabinger; Heckaman; Holmberg; Kilzer;
Krebsbach; Larson, D.; Lee, J.; Marcellais; Mathern; Meyer; Nelson; Oban;
Piepkorn; Robinson; Sorvaag; Unruh

ABSENT AND NOT VOTING: Burckhard; Schaible

Colt is correct, i copied it from the amendment right above 3019, my bad.

 

[espringers]

i spoke too soon based on the earlier post. my senator appears with the "yeas" on the last posted roll. booh... hiss...

 

[Davey Crockett]

Is there any mention of mineral rights ? Guessing they must be worth more than the land in a lot of cases ?

 

[Rowdie]

You can't tell me some wealthy landowners with $$$ in Bismarck's Pockets aren't trying to get this through so they can get their land back in the family rotation for pennies on the dollar. F'n BS.

There I fixed it for you!

 

[gst]

They were paid two to three times what the land was worth,

Please provide the information to show this to be true.

 

[PrairieGhost]

Please provide the information to show this to be true.

Personal communication. That's the way the gov always works. Check Church's Ferry when it flooded. I know two houses that would not sell for $10 in that small town. When they flooded FEMA gave them $50K. Long before they ever use eminent domain the try purchase at exorbitant prices. They sometimes use eminent domain because people are holding out for five to ten times what their property is worth. They think they are shafting the gov, but the gov is us.

 

[gst]

So you have no means to provide the facts to back up your claim.

I could sell a couple section of land where we farm and purchase 6 sections of land in another area of the state. It does not mean I got more than what the market is.

If these people did not give in to the govt demands for their lands, what was their recourse back when the lake was created in the 1940's?

There is a little deal out in Oregon plains where the govt wanted someones lands............they are currently in jail.

 

[Kurtr]

First I think it has to be the original person not there off spring or such. What if they dont want the land who gets it then. How is this the same as Oregon​ as this has no direct affect on livley hood as that does. It is public land that should stay public it could be put to use to help the tax base but should remain accessable.

 

[espringers]

And what if the heirs are 6 grandchildren that can't agree? Besides the fact that its still bullshit, this is gonna be a fucking mess.

 

[guywhofishes]

gov' picking winners/losers - where have I seen this before?

I am super pissed at those stupid jackwagons

 

[bravo]

This is absolute BS. The land has been public access COE land for decades, maintained for flood control as well as recreation, as was always intended. It was bought and paid for once, and it has been paid for by the taxpayers time and again. To "give it all back" to those lucky enough to be an heir to the original owner should be illegal. I understand someone's great grandparents maybe didn't want to sell. That doesn't mean that you should get your own private boat dock/ramp courtesy of the public. The fact that there are legislators basically willing themselves property should piss you off.

In ND, we do not gain public recreation land, it gets chipped away. And this would be an enormous chip. This needs to be more apparent to the public.

 

[gst]

First I think it has to be the original person not there off spring or such. What if they dont want the land who gets it then. How is this the same as Oregon​ as this has no direct affect on livley hood as that does. It is public land that should stay public it could be put to use to help the tax base but should remain accessable.

Not saying this is the same as Oregon........outside of the power the govt wields when it wants private property. And how that relates to ones decision to resist or accept what is offered.

I get the need for emminent domain. The govt needs a means to create public projects where there is private lands. But our Founders made private property rights a cornerstone of this nations Constitution and creation. A govt that has the power to take private property can if not held accountable and controlled be a very dangerous thing to the tennents this nation was Founded on. The Founders knew this to be true and debated it in writing the amendments.

Apparently this property has been deemed by the govt to be "excess".....that can likely be debated under the recreation caveat. But if under the rule of law (which the 5th amendment requires due process in a takings) this nation is supposed to follow, it is........then We the people should require the govt not "take" and hold any more private property than is necessary to accomplish their projects.

I am not familiar with the language included under the "due process" at the time in which these lands were taken to speak to whether recreation was included at that time or added after the fact.

The Founding fathers in writing the amendments to the Constitution had a great concern over a govt power to "take" private property. It was written about in the Federalist papers as well.

I simply tend to think they were pretty smart and agree that power to "take" private property should be limited and controlled and that we should not ignore our Constitution for recreational reasons.

Our State legislature is one way to hold the Federal govt accountable in this regard. We in return must hold our state legislators accountable to ensure this has a Constitutional rule of law basis.

Despite what others may think or claim, this is not about who owns the land for me nor would there be any kind of gain, it is about staying with the intent of our Constitution as put forth by the Founders based off the very real concerns they had gaining freedom from the govt they did.

We can not start to pick and choose and chip away at what parts of our Constitution we want to follow, the liberal already is trying to lead this nation down that path.

We were given something amazing in our Constitution if we can keep it.

- - - Updated - - -

This is absolute BS. The land has been public access COE land for decades, maintained for flood control as well as recreation, as was always intended. It was bought and paid for once, and it has been paid for by the taxpayers time and again. To "give it all back" to those lucky enough to be an heir to the original owner should be illegal. I understand someone's great grandparents maybe didn't want to sell. That doesn't mean that you should get your own private boat dock/ramp courtesy of the public. The fact that there are legislators basically willing themselves property should piss you off.

In ND, we do not gain public recreation land, it gets chipped away. And this would be an enormous chip. This needs to be more apparent to the public.

Apparently the Corp has deemed this land "excess" for flood control requirements so apparently it is not used or need for that.

Was recreation "always" intended when these lands were originally taken by the govt or was that later added under the management plan?

The land is not being "given" back to those non natives, but sold at market value. (which would provide a pretty good ROI to the tax payer)

Are there boat ramps/docks that would be sold?

What legislators would end up with these properties?

If there are lands that are needed for access there should be terms written for public access in the sale. Or if recreation is determined to be an original purpose of the land "takings" those lands should be kept.

 

[Kurtr]

Not saying this is the same as Oregon........outside of the power the govt wields when it wants private property. And how that relates to ones decision to resist or accept what is offered.

I get the need for emminent domain. The govt needs a means to create public projects where there is private lands. But our Founders made private property rights a cornerstone of this nations Constitution and creation. A govt that has the power to take private property can if not held accountable and controlled be a very dangerous thing to the tennents this nation was Founded on. The Founders knew this to be true and debated it in writing the amendments.

Apparently this property has been deemed by the govt to be "excess".....that can likely be debated under the recreation caveat. But if under the rule of law (which the 5th amendment requires due process in a takings) this nation is supposed to follow, it is........then We the people should require the govt not "take" and hold any more private property than is necessary to accomplish their projects.

I am not familiar with the language included under the "due process" at the time in which these lands were taken to speak to whether recreation was included at that time or added after the fact.

The Founding fathers in writing the amendments to the Constitution had a great concern over a govt power to "take" private property. It was written about in the Federalist papers as well.

I simply tend to think they were pretty smart and agree that power to "take" private property should be limited and controlled and that we should not ignore our Constitution for recreational reasons.

Our State legislature is one way to hold the Federal govt accountable in this regard. We in return must hold our state legislators accountable to ensure this has a Constitutional rule of law basis.

Despite what others may think or claim, this is not about who owns the land for me nor would there be any kind of gain, it is about staying with the intent of our Constitution as put forth by the Founders based off the very real concerns they had gaining freedom from the govt they did.

We can not start to pick and choose and chip away at what parts of our Constitution we want to follow, the liberal already is trying to lead this nation down that path.

We were given something amazing in our Constitution if we can keep it.

- - - Updated - - -




Apparently the Corp has deemed this land "excess" for flood control requirements so apparently it is not used or need for that.

Was recreation "always" intended when these lands were originally taken by the govt or was that later added under the management plan?

The land is not being "given" back to those non natives, but sold at market value. (which would provide a pretty good ROI to the tax payer)

Are there boat ramps/docks that would be sold?

What legislators would end up with these properties?

If there are lands that are needed for access there should be terms written for public access in the sale. Or if recreation is determined to be an original purpose of the land "takings" those lands should be kept.

Coe deeming any thing should be looked at as suspect to start. Is it a good ROI as i would suppose if you just look at dollar bills maybe but how many people will loose access to some of the places they have been going for years i would bet they dont think it is a good ROI. Why stop at just this as i am sure there is land all over that got taken from the natives should they not be in line to get it all back if we are going down this slippery slope of righting wrongs form years past. How about the slaves they should they not get something for the wrongs they dealt with from back in time i think the debt has been paid but we are going back 80 years and returning land why not go back 100 or 200 years. Remember a few years back when the COE said there would be no flooding and we had plenty of storage...... Also how many dollars a year does the recreation bring in and how much will be lost once these lands are shut of to use by the public?

 

[gst]

kurt did the "natives" hold a deed as recognized under our Constitution of land ownership?

It is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison.

Part of this bill as I understand it is to end the "discrimination" of giving the land to the tribes but requiring others to purchase it.

Can anyone show if recreation was in the agreement that the "takings" of these lands was originally proposed for?

One should be able to take a step back and see the potential issue with a govt that can "take" lands citing one reason or need, then after the fact add other reasons or needs to keep what has been deemed taken in "excess".

We can not start to pick and choose and chip away at what parts of our Constitution we want to follow, the liberal already is trying to lead this nation down that path.

 

[espringers]

when you look forward 150-200 years and consider the project purposes of irrigation and drinking water and start to think in terms of bank erosion, silting, ag runoff, etc... i think its a stretch to find any excess lands as well. and that's leaving recreation out of the equation. there is a damn good reason they have a nice size riparian buffer zone around that lake. and it has nothing to do with recreation and everything to do with storage, water quality and shoreline erosion. where is TIM SANDSTROM? i miss him on subjects like this and tires.

 

[Kurtr]

kurt did the "natives" hold a deed as recognized under our Constitution of land ownership?

It is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison.

Part of this bill as I understand it is to end the "discrimination" of giving the land to the tribes but requiring others to purchase it.

Can anyone show if recreation was in the agreement that the "takings" of these lands was originally proposed for?

One should be able to take a step back and see the potential issue with a govt that can "take" lands citing one reason or need, then after the fact add other reasons or needs to keep what has been deemed taken in "excess".

We can not start to pick and choose and chip away at what parts of our Constitution we want to follow, the liberal already is trying to lead this nation down that path.

who deemed them as excess lands? Is it the govt or the people should we not be the ones who can deem as excess or not excess it worries me to give the govt the power to deem some thing excess when the majority of the people they are working for dont see it that way. was it wrong the govt took these lands and paid for them maybe but when do we quit righting the wrongs of the past and at what expense to the people the govt is supposed to be representing? I dont see any public land as excess and any of the people i voted in here in Sodak that do will never get a vote from me. with the caviot that i believe it should be multiple use with say grazing and responsible mineral rights exploration. Where then double whammy make some money for the tax base and have recreational opportunity for all