June 30th, 2008

Changing the law on adverse possession

From the Daily Camera

It’s not every day that an otherwise ordinary couple living in an upscale, sleepy neighborhood is responsible for provoking national outcry and leading the charge on overhauling a centuries-old legal concept — but that’s exactly what south Boulder residents Don and Susie Kirlin have accomplished.

At midnight Tuesday, several changes to Colorado law will go into effect that increase the legal standards for proving “adverse possession,” a legal maneuver that has allowed trespassers who openly use land for at least 18 years to claim it as their own with relatively little legal burden.

The changes also will give judges the power to force adverse possessors to pay for the land they do win in court, and to compensate the original owner for back property taxes, and interest.

Another law going into effect this week will restrict judges from hearing cases involving other judges from the same jurisdiction, in an effort to avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of favoritism.

All of the changes are the result of dozens of state lawmakers who signed onto legislation this year aimed at preventing the abuse of adverse possession.

Read the rest.

June 30th, 2008

Annexation tour tops Pueblo council agenda

By JEFF TUCKER
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

After getting a bird’s-eye view from maps and photographs of the proposed 24,000-acre Pueblo Springs Ranch annexation, the Pueblo City Council will get a closer look today.

Council is scheduled to meet briefly at 2 p.m. this afternoon before heading out to the property to take a tour of the proposed annexation north of the city.

In February, council gave preliminary approval to the petitions to annex the property into the city.

Council also has hired Design Studios West, a Denver land planning and landscape architecture firm, to work as consultants during the annexation process.

If annexed, the property would nearly double the area of the city. Because of the size of the proposed annexation area, the tour is expected to be lengthy.

Council is scheduled to start the tour at 2 p.m. and won’t be finished until 8 p.m.

See the original story.

June 29th, 2008

Landowners in Limbo

From the Longmont Times-Call

LONGMONT — Butch Vernon isn’t going anywhere. Not anytime soon. Not that he knows of.

He opened his new Budget Home Center store at 780 Boston Ave. in May 1999. Five years later, voters approved the Regional Transportation District’s massive commuter rail project, FasTracks.

RTD’s conceptual map for the Longmont station now shows Vernon’s 10 acres as a parking lot. But Vernon hasn’t heard anything from RTD, he said Wednesday.

“We don’t know,” he said of RTD’s plans. “It’s kind of up in the air.”

Vernon knows that, whatever RTD’s plans, he doesn’t plan to close the business. He and his wife, Bev, opened Budget Home Center in Longmont in 1984. They bought their land on Boston Avenue in 1998 and opened the new store the next year.

If RTD needs his land, Vernon wants to make sure it doesn’t destroy his livelihood.

“If they have to have this property, they have to either find us another place to go or compensate us so we can,” he said. “That’s a lot of business interruption and time and effort, and things cost a lot more now than when we built this.”

Read the full story here.

June 26th, 2008

This Land WAS Your Land….

Music Please! This land was your land; now it’s my land from the Rocky Mountains to the Front Range highlands. In a stunning State Supreme Court decision, local governments now have the power to condemn property outside their own boundaries just because they don’t like how the land is being utilized. Colorado’s highest court upheld the practice of extraterritorial condemnation while striking down the Telluride Amendment designed to curb such eminent domain abuse. Tonight’s Independent Thinking with host Jon Caldara will discuss the fallout from the decision with guests State Senator Shawn Mitchell and Property Rights Project director Jessica Corry. Tune in tonight at 8:30 p.m. to KBDI Channel 12; repeated the following Tuesday evening at 5 p.m.

(H/T: Photo courtesy of Face the State)

June 25th, 2008

The latest on Pinon Canyon: Salazar Brothers Fueding?

FROM POLITICO:

Canyon expansion opens rift in Colo.
By: Patrick O’Connor

June 23, 2008 08:52 PM EST

Colorado lawmakers are feuding over a plan to transform hundreds of miles of arid
grassland into an expanded training facility for the U.S. Army.

The fight over the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site pits a freshman Republican against
one of his top benefactors. It puts strong supporters of the military at odds with
the Pentagon. And it has the Salazar brothers - Sen. Ken Salazar and Rep. John T.
Salazar, both Democrats - divided about the right path forward.

The Army wants to expand the site in southeastern Colorado so that it will have
more room for brigade-size training exercises involving thousands of troops from
nearby Fort Carson. But environmentalists and ranchers oppose the Army’s plan,
and Republican Rep. Marilyn Musgrave calls it “a colossal land grab.”
The Colorado conservative teamed up with Rep. Salazar last year to impose a one-year
moratorium preventing the Army from buying land around the site or completing a
congressionally mandated study on the economic and environmental impact of the planned
expansion.
The two seek another one-year moratorium as part of a military construction bill
scheduled to go before the House Appropriations Committee next week. But their
ban conflicts with an alternate measure - authored by Sen. Salazar and Colorado
Republican Sen. Wayne Allard - requiring the Army to complete a study on the expansion
by the end of July.
But the most public rift in the Pinon Canyon fight is the one between Musgrave,
a potentially vulnerable conservative, and freshman Rep. Doug Lamborn, a fellow
Republican who relied heavily on his GOP colleague to win a tight race in 2006.
Musgrave says the situation has gotten “a little sticky with some of the things
Doug said.”
Musgrave and Lamborn delivered competing proposals on Pinon Canyon during a Republican
Study Committee meeting earlier this year. At one point, Musgrave pulled Lamborn
aside and said, “You and I are just going to disagree on this. We can fight on
this, and then we can go back to the cloakroom and have a hot dog.”
But Lamborn apparently isn’t ready to share that red hot; he circulated a letter
to other lawmakers last week criticizing supporters of the Musgrave-Salazar amendment
for their “negligent disregard for the personal safety of our troops.”
“Don’t go there,” Musgrave replied, reminding a reporter that her son serves in
the Navy and her son-in-law served in Afghanistan.
Sen. Salazar is trying to find middle ground between these competing interests.
He and Allard in 2007 offered language calling on the Army to complete a comprehensive
survey, and an aide said the senator expects the Pentagon to complete that survey
by the July deadline. But he also backed the moratorium offered by his brother last
year, calling on the Army to suspend the process for a year.
The senator’s nuanced approach presents a stark contrast to his younger brother’s
outspoken opposition. For Rep. Salazar, the Army’s plan hits closer to home: Under
the expansion proposal, the Army would acquire more than 400,000 acres in his
congressional
district.
The Army favors this training site because of its proximity to Fort Carson and because
the terrain resembles that of Iraq. Fort Carson recently absorbed 8,500 additional
troops through the base realignment process, and supporters argue an expansion of
Pinon Canyon would give them the necessary additional training space.
But local ranchers and environmentalists largely oppose this expansion, arguing
that it would encroach on grazing land for cattle, stir the soil in a region of
the country that was once part of the desolate Dust Bowl and threaten fragile
archaeological
finds such as excavated dinosaur tracks and Native American pictographs.
A group of these ranchers and conservationists filed an injunction in federal court
to block the acquisition of this land. Their congressional backers are making the
case that they are fighting for ranchers in this showdown with the Pentagon.
“If you can’t stand up for the little guy, who can you stand up for?” Rep. Salazar
asked.
© 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC

June 25th, 2008

Eminent Domain in Edgewater

From Councilman Adam Gardner:

Edgewater, CO - June 24th, 2008.

The citizens of Edgewater adopted an update to their Home Rule Charter. The new charter, a complete re-write of the existing charter, includes a significant protection for personal property rights. The approach is believed to be unprecedented among Colorado municipalities. Councilman Adam Gardner said of the unique provision protecting property rights, “My only hope is that this action serves as a reminder to governments across Colorado that they do not have the last word on eminent domain. The people have the last say, if they will only stand up and be counted.” Councilman Gardner also thanked noted property rights attorney Bob Hoban and Independence Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Polhill who’s input helped shape the property rights provisions which Councilman Gardner proposed to the Charter Commission.

The provisions of the new charter essentially double the amounts paid to property owners if their land is taken using eminent domain and later sold to private developers. in effect, the language balances the need for government to use eminent domain power for public infrastructure, but heavily dis-incents misuse of eminent domain for private development. No property in Edgewater is currently being threatened with eminent domain, and Edgewater has not used its eminent domain power in nearly twenty years, but the commission felt that recent court decisions at the federal and state levels warranted reinforcement of property rights in Edgewater.

The language of the provisions are as follows:
19.5 Eminent domain. (1) The City shall have the full powers of eminent domain as provided by the
Constitution of the State of Colorado. No entity established by the City which has the power of eminent
domain shall exercise that power except upon the terms and conditions established by the City Council by
ordinance.
(2) The preferred interpretation of this Section 19.5 shall be to provide a disincentive to the City against
using its power of eminent domain to take private property from one owner in order to transfer it to another
non-governmental owner, including any entity created by a governmental entity for the purpose of
participating in a lease-purchase agreement with a private entity. This Section 19.5 shall not be interpreted
to limit the City’s power of eminent domain, to alter the definition of “just compensation” as established by
statutory and common law, or to alter the definition of “public use” as established by statutory and common
law.
(3) In the event that title to land or improvements that was obtained by the City or any entity of the City
using its power of eminent domain is transferred to a non-governmental owner at any time within ten (10)
years of the original taking, the City shall pay the former property owner the actual value of the property as
reported by the County assessor’s records as of the date of the original taking by the City in addition to the
amount of just compensation paid to the property owner at the time of the taking.
(4) Additional compensation due a property owner pursuant to Section 19.5(3) above shall be reduced by
any amount paid pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. § 4601, et seq., as
may be amended from time to time, and by any other amount paid by the City over and above the just
compensation amount paid at the time of the taking.
(5) The City shall not attempt to circumvent the intent of this Section 19.5 by the use of leases or other
financing mechanisms. The City shall make the payment specified in Section 19.5(3) if a lease or other
financing mechanism is granted to any non-governmental entity that permits the possession or use of the
taken property, with the exception of leases that permit the minor and incidental use of the property.
(6) Easements for public utilities and common carriers are specifically excluded from the requirements of
Section 19.5(3).
(7) Nothing shall prohibit an owner of land or improvements from releasing the City from the obligations
imposed on it by Section 19.5(3) by written agreement.

June 23rd, 2008

Property owners take a stand in Gateway

From the Denver Post

Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper has stepped in to ease tensions between landowners and city planners over how to develop the 4,500-acre Gateway area near Denver International Airport.

“Nine Denver Tech Centers can sit on the land mass out there,” said City Council president Michael Hancock, who represents the area and lives nearby. “This is Denver’s economic engine for the next 30 to 50 years.”

This past spring, 23 property owners in the area rebelled against Denver’s Department of Community Planning & Development, arguing that city officials were forcing an unworkable new-urbanism approach that emphasized pedestrian-friendly, densely compacted residential areas within walking distance of retail.

The landowners wanted more flexibility and objected to a street grid pattern the city had developed. The planners had improperly divided some tracts of land and prevented suburban-style housing in some instances, they said.

The struggle could impact the future shape and growth of Denver for years, for the Gateway area is the last large undeveloped area in the city.

The mayor dispatched his chief operating officer, Chris Henderson, to improve communication between city planners and the property owners.

Read the full story here.

June 23rd, 2008

Editorial: Boulder agenda endangering property rights

From the Daily Camera, by Bob Greenlee

Policy makers in Boulder County regularly trump reason with arrogance. That’s because unrepentant Socialists continue advancing their radical agenda on ordinary citizens. The latest insult from a bunch of diehard Plutocrats has them imposing new restrictions on home sizes in unincorporated areas.

For the past three years Boulder’s Commissars have been trying to implement means to punish, discriminate, and penalize a few citizens who have the audacity to build homes over a certain size. All this, according to the County’s propaganda machine, is being contrived to “help preserve the rural character…and diversity of housing stock.” Bull. It’s being done because egalitarian socialists can’t help themselves from imposing their narrow and myopic values on everyone else.

This latest example of legislative tyranny establishes a whole new system of “transferable development rights” whereby one group of property owners acquire special favors by being granted the right to sell all or a portion of a government created grant to some other property owner. It’s like a “cap and trade” scheme that’s unprecedented as far as local governments are concerned. It’s also likely illegal.

Read the rest here.

June 18th, 2008

PRP in the news

From the Daily Camera:

County Housing Mandates Dangerous Step in Wrong Direction

By Jessica Peck Corry & Kate Melvin

While a June 12th decision by the Boulder County Commission targets wealthy landowners, its negative impact will extend far beyond the rich.

Commissioners voted Thursday to impose regulations, set to go into effect in August, that will limit prospective homebuilders to 6,000 square feet before they will be required to purchase “development credits” for additional square feet from neighboring property owners who choose to build smaller properties. Essentially, this plan creates a secondary market similar to carbon credits sold on a national level for pollution abatement.

And while at first glance, it may be tempting to support a plan that encourages smaller homes during a time of serious and real concerns about our energy dependence on other countries, the new regulation is problematic for a multitude of reasons.

First, the policy will have a harmful impact on the environment. Already, thousands of workers commute to Boulder to work every day, many of them doing so because they can’t afford Boulder’s expensive housing market—made ever more costly due to a housing supply artificially limited by a multitude of building and regulatory mandates.

While the average Colorado home that sold in May did so for $117,200, a Boulder home sold in the same month set back the median buyer $355,700. Now, wealthy homeowners or those with large families may join the ranks of commuters choosing to live in neighboring counties friendly to property rights.

The 6,000 square foot cap isn’t just limited to a home—but also includes any garages, basements, or storage areas located on an individual property. The County Commission is touting this plan as one that will benefit smaller homeowners because they will be able to sell off extra “development credits” to landowners who wish to build houses over 6,000 square feet.

In basic economics, this is called redistribution of wealth. In political terms, this is called class warfare. Commissioners have also failed to consider the negative impact on the county’s property tax revenue. Affluent homeowners pay taxes that subsidize other, smaller properties. When prospective property owners flock to other counties, they will take their tax dollars with them.

And finally, there is the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees property owners just compensation when their property is taken. While Boulder officials have becoming increasingly willing in recent years to impose incredible regulatory burdens, including obscene limits under various historic designations and lot merging, on property owners only seeking to improve their homes, there comes a point when, even in Boulder, people say they’ve had enough.

Based on dozens of comments posted on the Boulder Daily Camera’s Web site by Friday afternoon, residents have hit their limit, with many expressing embarrassment about the decision, and one writing that he was “waiting to see a communist flag fly about the Boulder County Courthouse”.

Commissioner Ben Pearlman proudly proclaimed a socialist mantra during Thursday night’s meeting. “The greatest legacy of this project may be allowing people to choose to keep small houses for the benefit of themselves and the rest of their community,” he said.

But where is the choice?

While it may be politically convenient to go after wealthy property owners, the question remains: Who will Pearlman and his fellow commissioners take on next? The poor and middle class can’t afford to live in Boulder and the affluent are being ushered out.

Jessica Peck Corry serves as the director of the Independence Institute’s Property Rights Project (www.PropertyRightsProject.org) and Kate Melvin serves as PRP’s research assistant.

June 13th, 2008

Boulder County Approves Limits on Home Sizes

From the Daily Camera:

After years of discussion and debate, the county commissioners unanimously passed new regulations Thursday meant to preserve the rural character of unincorporated Boulder County by limiting house sizes.

The new rules, which will go into effect Aug. 8, will force anyone who wants to build a house larger than 6,000 square feet — including basements, garages and storage areas — to purchase extra “development credits” from smaller houses or vacant lots to do so. The idea is to offset huge homes with more modest houses and open land.

“We spent a lot of time talking about these issues — it’s been several years,” Commissioner Ben Pearlman said. “We have made many modifications to this. … I think the changes are better because of the comments we received.”

The new regulations also include changes to the county’s site plan review process — the framework used by the land-use staff to ensure, among other things, that new development is “compatible” with the existing neighborhood.

Read the full story here.