Hrc 3019?

[gst]

Like I said the determination of "excess" lands is likely certainly debatable. As to who should determine it, I would guess the proper entity would be neither the govt nor "factions" of people (Madison commented on this in the Federalist papers #10) that have a vested interest.

I am guessing there are companies (maybe allen knows) that could determine if these lands are actually needed for the original purpose of the takings.

Can anyone provide the information to show if recreation was a purpose listed under the original takings? or was it added later under a management plan?

Just going off memory here but I thought it was shown in a previous thread that recreation was added later under a developed COE management plan

kurt and espringers, out of curiousity, do you see any issues with a govt being able to claim a takings for one purpose then after the fact change the purpose to take or keep more lands than originally needed?

Keep in mind this "govt" is the likes of Sen Reid and company.............

that is the problem with govt perpetual easements, they reserve the right to change them at their discretion and those impacted have no option to opt out or change.

I don't think our Founders envisioned a Federal govt with that much power.

I'm leery about chipping away on a cornerstone of the foundation of this nation they created.

- - - Updated - - -

The govt "takes" land 20% beyond what is needed for flood control and then to appease the people it keeps the excess lands for "recreation"...

The govt takes 20% more lands than needed for wind and solar energy development and then to appease the people it keeps the excess for food production for the community food pantries.

The govt takes extra lands for a hiway development (just to be safe) and then to appease the people used the excess for housing developments for minorities and the poor.

Each end use is far different than the original takings purpose yet is well meaning, yet in fact serves one purpose.........re electing those in power in govt.

If the govt is going to take or keep lands for a purpose other than what was originally agreed upon, they need to provide "fair and just compensation" for those new takings purposes as the Constitution requires.

the difficulty of doing that 50 years later for reasons others have listed here is why the importance of holding the govt to the original purpose of the takings is critical.

Think of what would happen if for every takings thru emminent domain they could just take 20% more than needed and repurpose the usage to appease the people.

Think of how long it would take politicians (the govt) to realize they could use that to stay in power.

It has happened in other countries.

Look at what it has accomplished in this thread with politicians gaining or losing votes..........

Perhaps others trust the likes of Harry Reid and his cronies in the swamp..............

I trust our Constitution.

 

[Kurtr]

The problem is they are not taking the land now but 80 years ago. We can learn and not let them do this in the future and not let Harry Reid and Jason Chavez likes take private land or steal public land. Going back and trying to right historically wrong stuff never works in any ones but a few people's favor.

 

[Duckslayer100]

The problem is they are not taking the land now but 80 years ago. We can learn and not let them do this in the future and not let Harry Reid and Jason Chavez likes take private land or steal public land. Going back and trying to right historically wrong stuff never works in any ones but a few people's favor.

Exactly. Just wait until the Natives Americans catch wind of this.

"Hold your horses, guys, if anyone is getting any land back, it should be us! After all, we were here first and that's rightfully our land." - Joe Native

 

[gst]

Another problem is that now everything is settled in the courts. If a govt agency is allowed to keep lands that actually are "excess".........it sets a precedence that will be followed going forward.

I have an issue with private property being "taken" for the purpose of public recreation whether they are ag lands or a business or home in town.

Like I said, Madison wrote in the Federalist papers about the possible ramifications of "factions" of people supporting these inroads in our Constitution because it serves or benefits them and what the end result would be.

Remember, when private property can be taken for public recreation that the masses might support, that can include your home or business in town for a park just as easily as agricultural lands along a river for hunting and fishing.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly. Just wait until the Natives Americans catch wind of this.

"Hold your horses, guys, if anyone is getting any land back, it should be us! After all, we were here first and that's rightfully our land." - Joe Native

that was the start of this whole thing I believe under the Obama administration these lands were to be given to the tribes. That has been going on for years.

 

[raider]

my family lost land like this and i've spent much time thinking about it...

here's another way to think about it... say your grandfather was forced to sell his pre 64 winchester collection to the feds at their price to support a war effort... war is now over and the feds are gonna sell them off to generate income... who should have first chance to buy them at fair market value??? they will never make more pre 64's, just like they will never make more land - and no one would have been uprooted with no way to make a living in the area without the guns so that is even a very watered down comparison imo...

 

[Kurtr]

Another problem is that now everything is settled in the courts. If a govt agency is allowed to keep lands that actually are "excess".........it sets a precedence that will be followed going forward.

I have an issue with private property being "taken" for the purpose of public recreation whether they are ag lands or a business or home in town.

Like I said, Madison wrote in the Federalist papers about the possible ramifications of "factions" of people supporting these inroads in our Constitution because it serves or benefits them and what the end result would be.

Remember, when private property can be taken for public recreation that the masses might support, that can include your home or business in town for a park just as easily as agricultural lands along a river for hunting and fishing.

- - - Updated - - -



that was the start of this whole thing I believe under the Obama administration these lands were to be given to the tribes. That has been going on for years.

But they were not taken for recreation they were taken for the flood control recreation has just been a benefit that generates a lot of tax revenue.If this land was sold for a one time fee would it make more there or would there be a bigger benefit to the tax payers of the state of ND by keeping it public for years to come? What is a present day example of the fed govt taking land for recreational purposes?

my family lost land like this and i've spent much time thinking about it...

here's another way to think about it... say your grandfather was forced to sell his pre 64 winchester collection to the feds at their price to support a war effort... war is now over and the feds are gonna sell them off to generate income... who should have first chance to buy them at fair market value??? they will never make more pre 64's, just like they will never make more land - and no one would have been uprooted with no way to make a living in the area without the guns so that is even a very watered down comparison imo...

your grand father should have first shot after that it would be highest bidder

 

[gst]

kurt if the lands in question are in fact "excess" for the flood control purpose of the takings of these lands, then if they are being kept by the govt, the purpose of the govt taking those lands becomes for recreation because they were not needed for flood control.

(and I am skeptical of any govt agency determining much of anything as well)

It is like making an agreement with a perpetual easement with the govt under a certain set of terms......then the govt comes in and changes the terms of the agreement (which they keep the ability to do in a perpetual easement and the ONLY out you have is to sue them under the takings clause of the Constitution which takes MANY dollars and much time which most do not have)

My point here is if the original purpose and intent was to take these lands for flood control and recreation was NOT part of the original purpose of the takings, the govt should have to either dispose of excess lands or renegotiate the taking for the purpose those lands are being used for that was not a part of the original agreement.

Otherwise what is to stop the govt at some point from doing what I laid out in the examples I gave? If the govt gains the precedence to change these original agreements as they see fit without engaging in the due process of law regarding takings as spelled out in our Constitution it is a very large Pandora's box.

 

[johnr]

I am not arguing the reason for the lands being taken in the first place, or the fact that it is excess lands now. I am arguing that the heirs of this land have no more right to it than myself.
The fact that I once owned some land, it was found to be needed for some government project, and 80 years later they have found they have a bit to much, why the heck would my kids grand kids get dibs on it?
It is no different then the BLM crowd saying they need reparations for slavery that happened to a generation they never knew.
Shit doesn't work that way, I dont care if the land was yours, mine, or the Indians. Its the governments now, and the person with the most cash and desire is the one that gets it

 

[gst]

Was doing some reading and under eminent domain the "taker" has the land in title and can use it for any such use as they see fit.

"However, once the property is taken and the judgment is final, the condemnor owns it in fee simple, and may put it to uses other than those specified in the eminent domain action."

That to me seems very problematic given the degree of corruption within our federal govt.

The SCOTUS however has consistently upheld the states ability to determine what is "public use" in regards to lands seized within the state.

As the push for the wall on our southern border heats up this is going to be front and center.

Pandora's box..........http://www.cbsnews.com/news/eminent-domain-being-abused/

 

[PrairieGhost]

here's another way to think about it... say your grandfather was forced to sell his pre 64 winchester collection to the feds at their price to support a war effort... war is now over and the feds are gonna sell them off to generate income... who should have first chance to buy them at fair market value??? they will never make more pre 64's, just like they will never make more land - and no one would have been uprooted with no way to make a living in the area without the guns so that is even a very watered down comparison imo...your grand father should have first shot after that it would be highest bidder

your grand father should have first shot after that it would be highest bidder

Lets say those pre 64's were worth $800 and the gov paid $1600 for them. Years have gone by and now those pre 64's are worth $2500. If grandpa gets first crack what should he pay for those rifles?

 

[Colt45]

I think the homestead act of 1862 is crap! The government gave away millions of acres of western land to people who simply moved west.
Maybe the US government should collect some cash from the homesteaders heirs for the free land their ancestors were given 155 years ago. If the heirs don't want to pay up for their free land then auction it off to the highest bidder. Its just that simple. Living in the past and not the present is neat!

 

[bravo]

my family lost land like this and i've spent much time thinking about it...

here's another way to think about it... say your grandfather was forced to sell his pre 64 winchester collection to the feds at their price to support a war effort... war is now over and the feds are gonna sell them off to generate income... who should have first chance to buy them at fair market value??? they will never make more pre 64's, just like they will never make more land - and no one would have been uprooted with no way to make a living in the area without the guns so that is even a very watered down comparison imo...

Let's say this was 150 years ago. Grandpa used the money to buy another rifle, and has since passed. I never saw or used the rifle. The government decided that after the war, anyone who chooses to do so can use that pre 64 whenever they want. They used tax dollars to maintain it and provide ammo. Do I have any more claim to it than anyone else if they decide to sell it off?

There was land in my family that was lost when a dam in eastern ND was built. Should that dam silt over and they get rid of it, why would I have first crack at it? What if my family sold land for pennies during the 1930s to another farmer, and that land goes up for auction today. Will the auction company give me first dibs?

I hope I'm not coming off as a prick, its just how I fell about the whole thing. I think the fact that last time this came up in the legislature, that guy from Huff wrote it up to seemingly will himself the river bottom south of Mandan made me leery.

 

[PrairieGhost]

that guy from Huff wrote it up to seemingly will himself the river bottom south of Mandan made me leery.

Bernie Madoff has nothing over on that crook.

 

[raider]

Let's say this was 150 years ago. Grandpa used the money to buy another rifle, and has since passed. I never saw or used the rifle. The government decided that after the war, anyone who chooses to do so can use that pre 64 whenever they want. They used tax dollars to maintain it and provide ammo. Do I have any more claim to it than anyone else if they decide to sell it off?

There was land in my family that was lost when a dam in eastern ND was built. Should that dam silt over and they get rid of it, why would I have first crack at it? What if my family sold land for pennies during the 1930s to another farmer, and that land goes up for auction today. Will the auction company give me first dibs?

I hope I'm not coming off as a prick, its just how I fell about the whole thing. I think the fact that last time this came up in the legislature, that guy from Huff wrote it up to seemingly will himself the river bottom south of Mandan made me leery.

the rifle collection was an example, it was not a rifle collection...

it was farm land and a farmstead with the house that my mom and aunts grew up in... this was in the mid 60's, and there was no other land around to farm or home to move into... they ended up moving 150 miles away and completely starting over...

the land was not for sale, but uncle told them what they would pay, and that's what they got after fighting for years in court to try to keep what they had...


i wouldn't say you're being a prick, but if someone came in and turned your life upside down by taking your property and ability to make a living in the area you live, i'm thinking you might at least want first crack at it if it became available again...

 

[gst]

Lets say those pre 64's were worth $800 and the gov paid $1600 for them. Years have gone by and now those pre 64's are worth $2500. If grandpa gets first crack what should he pay for those rifles?

Market value like this resolution requires of this land.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the homestead act of 1862 is crap! The government gave away millions of acres of western land to people who simply moved west.
Maybe the US government should collect some cash from the homesteaders heirs for the free land their ancestors were given 155 years ago. If the heirs don't want to pay up for their free land then auction it off to the highest bidder. Its just that simple. Living in the past and not the present is neat!

Free???

Wanna go west in a wagon and cut a sod house out or live in a dug out for 5 years try not to starve to death and still think it was "free"?