March 31st, 2006

Fox News To Take Up Colorado Eminent Domain Tonight at 7 p.m.

Television Network Friday, March 31, 7:00PM, The Hannity and Colmes Television Show is doing a 5-10 minute segment on the Wissler Ranch Story, including a live discussion with SaveWisslerRanch Spokespersons. The segment should air sometime between 7:30 - 7:40PM.

SaveWisslerRanch School Board Liaison Task Force Members have been unsuccessful in their attempts to speak with Board of Education Officials. We hope to accomplish this next week.

Volunteers are diligently working on documentation to support the opinion that Eminent Domain is unnecessary in the Wissler Ranch case. Your help is needed as we continue to delegate specific tasks to the volumes of you who have offered assistance to the Wissler Family. There is still much work to do in order to present our research to the School Board in a manner that they might acknowledge and consider our findings. Look for more volunteer opportunities in the near future.

In the meantime, there is something very important you can do right now. Continue to write/email School Board Members. It is important that they hear from each of you individually and often. Our position weakens if the only communication and opinion comes from our committee. Please email and/or call the School Board today. You can find their email address on the front page of our website at www.savewisslerranch.com.

March 31st, 2006

From Karen Rose of Citizens Against Forced Annexation

Property Rights friends:

If you could help us ( and yourselves) on this issue we’d all save thousands of dollars and get control of city bureaucracies who have become too powerful. HB1159 addresses the first step cities take towards being able to apply eminent domain—- forced annexations that then target “blighted areas” ripe for redevelopment and revenue growth. Can you get this spread around so that we can win the battle against the Colorado Municipal League and out-of-control City Councils? Two weeks ago 50 House Representatives did NOT support the right for residents to vote about forced annexations ! Help us and let us know how we can help you over here in Larimer County! Thank You so much for considering this and hopefully requesting assistance from your members.

A little noticed bill in the Colorado legislature has suddenly become important to tens of thousands of Coloradoans, because it will give them representation and voting rights. The

Bill HB06-1159 “Concerning enclave annexations” would allow those living within enclaves (areas surrounded by other annexed city neighborhoods) to vote on whether to be annexed into the city. Karen Rose with Citizens Against Forced Annexation asked Rep. Angie Paccione and Sen. Steve Johnson to craft the bill and amend it when it got to the Senate. It is expected to be back in the House early next week and the Colorado Municipal League just “woke up” and is strongly opposing it. The Senate supported it almost unanimously —-with only 2 opposing votes ! This is a bi-partisan “peoples’ bill” asking for representation and voting rights for residents, small business owners, and property owners. Although this email is long, it is meant to provide you with information that you can choose to contact all the Representatives.

Their contact information is at the bottom of the email and can be copied and pasted so that you can send a few sentences urging passage of HB 1159. You may forward this email all over

the state urging others to also contact the Representatives by Monday April 3rd. Thank you.

HB 1159 “Concerning the annexation of enclaves”

(Currently residents, businesses, & property owners have NONE of the following)

Provides for a “transition committee” of 5 residents and 4 county & city staff to investigate, discuss, and communicate all the changes in taxes, fees, code regulations and requirements, etc.
Provides for a disclosure on property transactions that identify the property is located in an area eligible to be annexed in the future
Provides for a vote by resident electors in the enclave to be annexed
This Bill not only gives “sunshine” to the process of annexation but also gives representation and voting rights to residents who have had none during the entire process of being “enclaved”.

Throughout Colorado, Councils and Commissioners can create Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s), that bypass the will of the people involved, concerning growth management areas and enclaves.

· Some Colorado cities(often in partnership with counties) actively purchase open space land, using the millions of taxpayer dollars produced by the OS tax, to purposely enclose areas and take the property into the city. Those hundreds of acres neither use nor will ever need “urban services” .

· Some Colorado cities have policies of not even voluntarily annexing property IF it will create an enclave and thus force others into an unfair annexation situation.

· Some Colorado cities have policies of not using their open space to create enclaves and some do not annex city open space that is outside the GMA

· Some cities actually “market” the benefits of being annexed

· Most neighborhoods in county areas are not in need of today’s “urban services”. They already have all the utilities, roads that meet county and often urban standards, and they provide, through the city sales taxes when shopping in a city, their contribution towards using roads or a city park when in a city.

When a city and county create an IGA designating an area that will be forcibly annexed, the county residents have essentially lost their elected county commissioners. And they have had no right to vote in the City Council members elections, so have no representatives there. They are being forced without representation into higher taxes and fees when forcibly annexed. (Taxation through annexation without representation)

HB 1159 gives people back their right to vote on both the taxation and property rights issues. It will also encourage cities to both “market” their benefits and to improve their financial and operational management within their current city limits.

The Constitutional language that CML is questioning –Article II, Sec.30—does not prohibit the legislature from acting in this area of enclave annexations. It was specifically crafted to allow the legislature to act and uses the word “may” instead of “shall” or “must”.

Thank you for your serious consideration of the voting rights of all Colorado citizens.

Karen Rose –for Citizens Against Forced Annexation www.citizensagainstforcedannexation.com

krose@frii.com

970-223-1502

Just copy and paste into TO: on your email. It will copy the names also, but they will disappear in about 60 seconds, leaving just the addresses ready to go !

David Balmer david.balmer.house@state.co.us
Debbie Benefield debbie@debbiebenefield.org
Bill Berens billberens@msn.com
Alice Borodkin AliceB321@aol.com
Betty Boyd betty.boyd.house@state.co.us
Bernie Buescher bernie.buescher.house@state.co.us
Dorothy Butcher dorothy.butcher.house@state.co.us
Bill Cadman bill.cadman.house@stste.co.us
Morgan Carroll morgan.carroll.house@state.co.us
Terrance Carroll terrance.carroll.house@state.co.us
Mike Cerbo michael.cerbo.house@state.co.us
Lauri Clapp lauriclapp@comcast.net
Mark Cloer mark.cloer.house@state.co.us
Fran Coleman fran.coleman.house@state.co.us
Bill Crane bill@billcrane.org
Kathleen Curry kathleencurry@montrose.net
Richard Decker richard.decker.house@state.co.us
K. Jerry Frangas kjerry.frangas.house@state.co.us
Rahael Gallegos rafael.gallegos.house@state.co.us
Michael Garcia michael@michaelgarcia.info
Cory Gardner gardner@plains.net
Gwyn Green gwyngreen@yahoo.com
Dale Hall dale.hall.house@state.co.us
Ted Harvey ted.harvey.house@state.co.us
Lynn Hefley lynn.hefley.house@state.co.us
Mary Hodge mary.hodge.house@state.co.us
Diane Hoppe diane.hoppe.house@state.co.us
Cheri Jahn cheri.jahn.house@state.co.us
Joel Judd joel.judd.house@state.co.us
James Kerr james.kerr.house@state.co.us
Keith King keith@keithking.org
Matt Knoedler matt.knoedler.house@state.co.us
Mark Larson marklarson@gobrainstorm.net
Gary Lindstrom gary@garylindstrom.com
Larry Liston larry.liston.house@state.co.us
Kevin Lundberg kevin@kevinlundberg.com
Alice Madden alice.madden.house@state.co.us
Rosemary Marshall rosemary.marshall.house@state.co.us
Tom Massey tom.massey.house@state.co.us
Mike May mike.may.house@state.co.us
Bob McCluskey bob.mccluskey.house@state.co.us
Liane McFadyen mcfadyen2002@hotmail.com
Anne McGihon alm@mcgihonlaw.com
Wes McKinley wes.mckinley.house@state.co.us
Michael Merrifield michael.merrifield.house@state.co.us
Angie Paccione angie.paccione.house@state.co.us
Joshua Penry Joshua.penry.house@state.co.us
Tom Plant tom.plant.house@state.co.us
Jack Pommer jack.pommer.house@state.co.us
Ann Ragsdale ann.ragsdale.house@state.co.us
Jim Riesberg jim.riesberg.house@state.co.us
Andrew Romanoff romanoff@coloradohouse.org
Ray Rose ray.rose.house@state.co.us
David Schultheis dave.schultheis.house@state.co.us
Judith Solano judsol@earthlink.net
John Soper john.soper.house@state.co.us
Debbie Stafford Debbie.stafford.house@state.co.us
Joe Stengel joe.stengel.house@state.co.us
Jim Sullivan jsullrep@earthlink.net
Nancy Todd nancy.todd.house@state.co.us
Val Vigil val.vigil.house@state.co.us
Jim Welker jim.welker.house@state.co.us
Paul Weissmann reppaul@aol.com
Al White al.white.house@state.co.us
Robert Witwer rob.witwer.house@state.co.us

March 28th, 2006

Bill Seeks To Give Property Owners Day in Court

From HGTV.com on March 27th:

Answering an ongoing concern of the nation’s home builders over eminent domain issues, bipartisan legislation introduced on Feb. 16 by Reps. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) and Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) would restore the protections offered under the Fifth Amendment to property owners.

“H.R. 4772, the ‘Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2006,’ is designed to ensure that property owners get their day in federal court to defend their Fifth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, which provides that no person shall ‘be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation,’” said NAHB President David Pressly.

March 28th, 2006

ARIZONA FEDERATION OF TAXPAYERS: Expanding economic growth and prosperity for all Arizonans

NEWS RELEASE

March 27, 2006

Restrictive Land-Use Rules Add Billions to AZ Housing Costs

PHOENIX-Housing shortages caused by restrictive land-use laws have added tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of homes in Arizona, says a new report released today by the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers. The report, by policy analyst Randal O’Toole, estimates that government planners have added $37,000 to the cost of median homes in Tucson, $55,000 in Phoenix, and $72,000 in Flagstaff. The report notes that these estimates are conservative and the real costs could be 25 percent more.

“O’Toole’s report has revealed a gigantic hidden tax on Arizona homebuyers,” said AFT executive director Tom Jenney. “And as Arizona homeowners know, higher home prices mean higher assessed values and higher property taxes.”

Housing was affordable throughout Arizona in 1989, according to the report. But growth-management planning in Flagstaff started creating a housing shortage by 1999. That shortage forced homebuyers to pay a penalty for living in or near Flagstaff. Similar shortages followed in Phoenix and Tucson in the early 2000s.

The penalties of government planning are far greater than the supposed costs of sprawl, says the report. The most widely cited study of the costs of sprawl estimates that urban-service costs to low-density neighborhoods are about $11,000 more per home than urban-service costs to higher-density neighborhoods.

“How smart is ‘smart growth’ if it makes every home in the city cost $37,000 to $72,000 more so the city can save $11,000 on a few new homes?” asks O’Toole. O’Toole recommends that cities set user fees and taxes to make sure new development covers its costs and let people make their own choices about where they want to live.

High housing costs can hurt local economies by causing employers to locate elsewhere and forcing workers to make long commutes to other areas with more affordable housing. Land-use restrictions are also regressive, because they impose especially large burdens on low-income families while providing windfall profits for wealthy homeowners.

“It is sadly ironic that communities that consider themselves progressive, such as Flagstaff, have very regressive land-use rules,” says O’Toole. The 2000 census found that 63 percent of white families in Flagstaff own their own homes, while only 53 percent of Hispanic and 38 percent of black families do. Racial disparities are even greater in Phoenix and Tucson.

O’Toole argues that restrictive land-use planning is not needed to protect farms and open space. The U.S. Department of Agriculture says that just 1.5 percent of Arizona has been urbanized, adding that urbanization is “not considered a threat to the nation’s food production.” When housing is scarce and open space is abundant, O’Toole argues, government efforts to preserve the latter at the expense of the former are a tragic misplacement of priorities.

The report recommends that cities and counties leave open space protection to private conservation organizations and repeal smart-growth plans so that homebuilders can meet the demand for new housing. The 48-page report can be downloaded from the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers website, www.aztaxpayers.org. Spreadsheets and other documents with data and calculations for more than 300 metropolitan areas can be found at www.americandreamcoalition.org.

Media contact: Randal O’Toole, (541) 297-6798, rot@ti.org

For more information about the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers, contact:

Chad Kirkpatrick, chairman, Arizona Federation of Taxpayers,
chair@aztaxpayers.org

Tom Jenney, vice chairman and executive director, Arizona Federation of
Taxpayers, vc@aztaxpayers.org, (602) 478-0146.

March 28th, 2006

Georgia Senate signs off on eminent domain reform

The Atlanta Business Chronicle discusses how “the Georgia Senate on Friday gave its blessing to Gov. Sonny Perdue’s
broad-based eminent domain reform package. “

Senators’ 53-0 vote in favor of House Bill 1313 and 52-2 vote for House Resolution 1306 means the state is just a few steps away from adopting eminent domain laws touted by proponents as the most comprehensive in the nation.

March 24th, 2006

SaveWisslerRanch, Advocates for Education without Eminent Domain

Below is the latest correspondence with School Board Officials. Go to www.savewisslerranch.com for more updates and to post comments on the new message board.

Tune in Saturday at 10:00AM-NEWSTALK 1460 KZNT The Ted Robertson Show. Jay Brant, SaveWissler Ranch School Board Liaison Task Force Leader will be on the air.

Also tune in to Fox News Network, Friday, March 24, 7:00PM, The Hannity and Colmes Program is covering the Wissler Ranch Story.

Have a great Spring Break.

Re: Meeting Request
From: JCBRANDT SaveWisslerRanch, School Board Liaison Task Force
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:59:48 EST
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: Meeting Request

As I have stated many times in my previous messages, the intent of the requested meetings is simple, to provide the board an opportunity to connect with your constituents and share your personal views on the many components that make up this issue, i.e. the growth study, the use of eminent domain, the established criteria for siting a new high school, the feasibility of using the property the district currently owns, other land options that were considered and dismissed because “they were not for sale”, etc.

The intent is not for you to hear my views, it is for you to educate myself and other constituents on the positions you have adopted and why. You may have sound, valid reasons for your positions, but until you share your views, I can only surmise what your position is.

I wish to reiterate my desire to meet and do not believe it is a requirement that I provide a detailed agenda or that the discussion be limited to speaking only about my suggestions for a site. As a taxpayer in the district and a parent of two children in the district any question I have related to the district’s business should be suitable (CSAP tests, spelling program, student conduct, second high school, etc.)

You say you can’t meet with every constituent in the district. Have you met with one regarding this issue? As I have stated from the beginning, by meeting with myself or other members of our community group you can avoid having the same questions asked hundreds of times, we will share the information you provide with hundreds of residents of the district.

I know that there were comments made at the board meeting and elsewhere that suggest that myself and others opposed to the use of eminent domain don’t care as much about the kids as you do and that we are late comers to the discussion. I want to address that clearly. You have no moral authority to suggest that I love my kids less than you do. I am a caring, involved parent and I will not tolerate any suggestion to the contrary. As to the fact that we are late comers to the discussion, we entered the discussion the minute it became known of your intent to use eminent domain to acquire land from Mrs. Wissler. By Mr. Dilley’s own account the discussions had been “private” to that point, how were we to know what you were up to?

I feel that your continued refusal to meet with myself or others concerned about this matter does nothing to further your agenda, in fact just the opposite. We want an open dialogue. We want to work together to see a bond issue that has a strong chance of passage that will provide the necessary additional capacity in our district. Why not work with us?

If you change your mind and agree to meet without your randomly imposed restrictions, I will make every effort to be available at a convenient time and place. I am however, a parent with two children in the district and will be on a family vacation during spring break. As you saw in Mrs. Raintree’s letter she suggested that most if not all of the board were also going to be gone next week.

One last comment, if you are going to schedule a public meeting to discuss this matter, I hope you will, in fact, answer the questions that are posed. Your comment that we may ask questions of the board “if appropriate” baffles me. When is it not appropriate to ask a question of an elected official?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Jay Brandt
Save Wissler Ranch
Advocates for Education Without Eminent Domain
19435 Kings Deer Lane
Monument, CO 80132
Ph. 487-9391
Cell 360-0443

March 24th, 2006

WSJ: Of Mice and Men

Over at the Wall Street Journal, Stephen Moore writes about Colorado’s Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and its impact on property rights.

DENVER — Here in Colorado, the hottest political issue of the day may not be the war in Iraq or the out-of-control federal budget, but rather the plight of a tiny mouse. Back in 1998, a frisky eight-inch rodent known as the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse gained protective status under the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA). What has Coloradans hot under the collar is that some 31,000 acres of local government and privately owned land in the state and stretching into Wyoming — an area larger than the District of Columbia — was essentially quarantined from all development so as not to disrupt the mouse’s natural habitat. Even the Fish and Wildlife Service concedes that the cost to these land owners could reach $183 million.

What we have here is arguably the most contentious dispute over the economic impact of the ESA since the famous early-’90s clash between the timber industry and the environmentalist lobby over the “endangered” listing of the spotted owl in the Northwest. That dispute eventually forced the closure of nearly 200 mills and the loss of thousands of jobs. Last week the war over the fate of the Preble’s mouse escalated when a coalition of enraged homeowners, developers and farmers petitioned the Department of the Interior to have the mouse immediately delisted as “endangered” because of reliance on faulty data.

The property-rights coalition would seem to have a fairly persuasive case based on the latest research on the mouse. It turns out that not only is the mouse not endangered, it isn’t even a unique species.

More here.

March 21st, 2006

Boulder Land Use Coaltion: “No on SB 06-74″

“In a March 14th letter, Pamela McElwain, President of the Boulder Land Use Coalition, expresses the LUC’s concerns to Governor Bill Owens regarding Senate Bill 06-74, legislation that if signed by Owens, could eliminate the right to statutory attorney fees by those facing abusive actions by local governments.”

March 14, 2006

Dear Governor Owens:

We strongly urge you to veto Senate Bill 06-74.

This Bill has been fast-tracked through the House so quickly in the past few days that our window of opportunity to comment during the legislative process has been almost nil. Although there are a number of provisions that concern us, it is Section 6 of the Bill that alarms us the most:

Section 6: exempts the county from the attorney fees statute - the purpose of which is to allow the Court to award attorney fees in order to make whole a or at least compensate partially a wronged party in the event the suit or claim brought against the party is found to be frivolous, groundless, vexatious or brought in bad faith.

This Bill removes the sole remedy available for landowners who have been negligently or deliberately mis-charged with land use violations by a county, in essence granting immunity to the County. This kind of harassment – amounting to an abuse of prosecution – is well documented and has occurred here in Boulder County. Until now, victims at least have been able to seek redress from the courts for attorney fees for frivolous, groundless and vexatious claims. The courts have compensated some of these landowners who have filed for relief under the attorney fees statute, to the County’s great embarrassment.

Senate Bill 06-74 will eliminate this remedy.

This bill was drafted by partisan staff members within Boulder County government. Supporters of the Bill (attorneys from the Boulder County Attorney’s office) have claimed that the reason CRS 30-28-124 needs to be revised is to allow counties the ability to crack down on chronic land use violators. According to one Boulder County employee, however, there are merely a handful of violators out of hundreds each year who don’t comply with the penalties or requests from the county to remedy their situation. The County already has ample tools for enforcing its regulations.

If the state grants immunity for County misconduct (by placing an exception to the attorney fees statute), it will effectively eliminate the only power citizens now have against governmental harassment – the equivalent to giving license to government to abuse its own citizens, and withholding any remedy for damages or penalty for illegal conduct.

Given legal and bureaucratic immunity, counties like Boulder with a well-documented track record of abuse will be encouraged to run roughshod over the individual landowner.

This would be unfair, wrong and undemocratic.

There are other concerns we have with the Bill:

• Permits the County to lien the property with penalties imposed on the landowner (expressly prohibited by the current statute)
• Shortening up time limits from 30 days to 10 days to come into compliance does not recognize the practical realities of complying,
• Lack of specificity of service of notice on the landowner,
• Other language problems that obscure the meaning of certain provisions.

We urge you to not sign Senate Bill 06-74 unless the provision eliminating the right to statutory attorney fees (Section 6) is removed.

We welcome the opportunity to meet with you and your staff to discuss the ramifications of this legislation. We understand that your schedule is demanding, but hope that you can find time to fit us in.

Thank you.

Pamela McElwain, President
The Land Use Coalition

The Land Use Coalition is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, 100% volunteer organization based in Boulder County. We have been active in county and state land use issues for a number of years, looking out for the rights of individual landowners. We are often the only voice our citizens have regarding the County’s use of unfairly restrictive land use practices and policies in order to control growth.

THE LAND USE COALITION
Phone: 303.666.7903 - Fax: 501.325.6918
PO Box 20265 - Boulder, CO 80308

March 21st, 2006

Senator Arlen Specter is blocking Eminent Domain bill

Kathy Fauth offers an update on federal action regarding eminent domain. Her key question: Will the Senate have the courage to say no to eminent domain abuse?

Don’t let them steal your property after they wear you down!

Senator Arlen Specter is blocking Eminent Domain bill

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary committee, is blocking action on the Property Rights Protection Act (S.1313).

The bill was introduced in June, 2005 by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) in response to the shocking Supreme Court’s Kelo VS New London, CT decision that said local and state governments can bull doze private homes to build shopping malls and luxury condos. S.1313 would cut off federal funds to cities that use Eminent Domain for community development projects.

The House passed it’s own version of the bill several months ago. Senator Specter did hold headings on the bill in September, where Suzette Kelo gave dramatic testimony about her case that led to the Supreme Court showdown. But that’s where action stopped. Today, S.1313 sits in Specter’s committee, apparently forgotten.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities have lobbyists pouring over Capitol Hill trying to persuade Congress to defeat the legislation and not diminish their power to take private property at their whim. Senator Specter apparently is stalling action on S.1313 to give these two powerful groups time to make their case.

Senator Specter is playing political games with your right to own and control private property. He is siding with big government land grabs over private property owners. Senator Specter, the Mayors Conference and the National League of Cities hope you will forget your outrage over the Supreme Court decision. They are hoping the fire of the property rights revolt brought on by the Kelo decision will burn out.

You and I cannot let this happen.

ACTION TO TAKE:

First, call or write Senator Specter and demand that he stop stalling and allow a vote in his Judiciary Committee on the Property Rights Protection Act (S.1313).

Write or call Senator Specter’s office:

Senate Office Number: (202) 224-4254

Fax Number: (202) 228-1229

E-mail Address: arlenspecter@specter.senate.gov

Senate Office Address: SH-711 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510-3802

Tell Senator Specter that you support the Property Rights Protection Act S.1313 and you want the bill passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and sent to the Senate for a full vote by the U.S. Senate.

Write or call both of your state’s U.S. Senators to urge them to support S.1313.

Capitol Hill Switchboard: (202) 224-3121

Or write: Senator ________________

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

March 16th, 2006

Colorado House Committee commits to property rights measure

Yesterday, a house committee passed Al White’s referred measure designed to fight eminent domain abuse. Many are surprised it got this far. The big question now is: Can it get the two-thirds majority it needs in both houses to make it to the November ballot? Let us know your thoughts.

A constitutional amendment to strengthen private property rights in Colorado passed its first major hurdle Tuesday, clearing a House committee after ill-fated attempts to make changes.

The measure, which will be on the November ballot if it passes both houses of the General Assembly by two-thirds votes, specifically rules out “economic development” as a reason for the government to condemn private property.

The amendment passed the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee on an 11-0 vote.