Property Owners Triumph Over Eminent Domain Taking
After a 27-month battle with the $80-billion Texas Department of Transportation backed by the Spanish corporation Cintra-Zachary, with the strong support State of Texas’ Governor, Rick Perry, property owners won an injunction to stop the confiscation of their land. Texas has a unique statute that allows for local governments to join together creating a planning commission, which then allows them to invoke coordination with state agencies. Five towns and school districts combined representing approximately 6,500 people and their jurisdiction covered 30 square miles.
The five communities would have been destroyed by the creation of the I-35 Trans-Texas Corridor, a quarter-mile wide super transportation corridor. The corridor itself was to hold six passenger lanes for commuter travel, four truck lanes for long hauls, freight rail and high speed rail. The right-of-way that would be condemned for the project was a quarter-of-a-mile wide, taking 146 acres per mile from Americans. Fire stations would have been cut off from the communities they protect. School districts across the state would have to be redistricted. School buses would be adding hundreds of miles a day navigating around the limited access super highway. Residents would be forced to pay a toll to get to work. 500,000 private acres would be confiscated to accommodate not only the internationally funded highway system, but also to provide lease pads to gas, hotel and restaurant services. The people impacted in these small rural communities would suffer all the economic and social damage for this international project.
No one could stop the Trans-Texas Corridor. It had the aggressive backing of Governor Rick Perry, the full support of the Texas Department of Transportation (the largest state agency in the nation), and was internationally backed by Cintra-Zachary. This $80 billion project was on a fast pace to connect the Chinese owned Mexican seaports with Canada, that is, until these five courageous towns and their school districts invoked coordination and took a stand equal in spirit to the Alamo, but with a much better result — Texans won.
The cities are now working to make this injunction permanent so that this debacle canot be revived at a later time. To read the full case story, click the link: Full Case Study
U.S. Supreme Court Decision Hurts Florida— Helps Ohio Property Owners
Press Release from OLG President Tony Yankel
Sheffield Lake (OH) – On June 17, 2010 the U.S. Supreme court in an 8-0 ruling, took another bite out of the constitution and property rights. Environmental activists mistakenly believe that the U.S. Supreme Court decision will set a new direction for property rights in Ohio. But they are wrong.
Although the “Stop the Beach Re-nourishment” case was a blow to private property owners in Florida, the decision made some very strong and fundamental points. Of prime importance, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision makes it clear that state law defines property rights and not federal law. Read more
Ohio Lakefront Group 2010 Annual Meeting
The Ohio Lakefront Group Annual Meeting was held on May 13th at Holiday Inn West in Westlake. Greg Baeppler, OLG Board Chairman conducted the business meeting. The business meeting began with the nomination and election of the 2010-2011 Board of Directors. The previous 11 members of the board were nominees to continue into next year. There were no nominations from the floor and the OLG Secretary cast a ballot for election by acclamation. Rick Rennell, OLG Treasurer, displayed a finance report showing last years balance, the year’s income and expenses by category, and the beginning 2010-2011 balance. The report was accepted by the membership as presented. The business meeting was then concluded.
OLG President Tony Yankel gave a brief synopsis of our standing with the lawsuit. Briefs are being filed by both sides based on the Ohio Supreme Court schedule. Briefs will be concluded by August. The Court will then set a schedule for oral arguments, which is to be determined. We are getting some organizations to file Amicus briefs (friend of the Court) on our behalf. Save Our Shoreline from Michigan. Dave Powers, SOS Vice President, will be filing. Also, Maurice Thompson of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law will file on our behalf. We are expecting other briefs as well. (Tony Yankel Video Pending)
Dave Powers of Michigan SOS spoke about their lawsuit which was lost in the Michigan Supreme Court after having won in the Trial Court and Appellate Court. He gave the history of the case and how the Michigan Supreme Court bumbled the decision in favor of “beach walking”. He continued his message about lessons learned in Michigan and what OLG can do to help prevent a similar occurrence by the Ohio Supreme Court. We must actively pursue public relations to counter the State’s misinformation about private property. Ohio AG Richard Cordray recently wrote an editorial in he Sandusky Register claiming that if we win our case, all of Lake Erie will be fenced off from the public. (This is not only untrue, but as most know impossible. He also failed to mention the 43 miles of public beach which the State is not able to adequately maintain.) Our PR efforts must counter these lies and misinformation. Further he advocated getting as many Amicus briefs as possible.There are 2 clips. Click on each to see the video. Dave Powers SOS part 1 Dave Powers SOS part 2
Maurice Thompson, Executive Director of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, spoke of his involvement with constitutional issues such as private property. He spoke of several cases settled by the Ohio Supreme Court that favored private property owners. He gave a good history of private property law in Ohio and how his center strongly supports our efforts in this lawsuit. To see a video clip of Maurice Thompson‘s comments, click his link.
Shaun Newsome, a marina owner on the Vermilion River, spoke about the recent ODNR attempt designate the Vermilion River as a “scenic river” without consultation with any property owners along the river. As a scenic river, the ODNR has virtual control of the land from the river’s center to at least 1000 feet on both sides of the river. Mr. Newsome explained that property owners read a small press release from ODNR stating their intention to designate the river with a meeting scheduled for interested parties. Property owners found that two (2) years ago the ODNR went to various municipal and county governments along the river and asked for their approval for a “Study” to determine whether the Vermilion should be designated as a scenic river. Nothing was heard from ODNR until the press release. At the meeting ODNR officials were unable to answer any questions about what the 240.000 study determined or what the “scenic” designation meant. A subsequent meeting was scheduled by ODNR with double the number of people attending. At the end of this meeting ODNR said they were delaying designation of the river. ODNR, In a more recent press, said they would no longer pursue the “scenic river” designation unless it was brought back to them by the citizens. Most government agencies dropped their support to ODNR as originally given 2 years ago. To see the video clips of Shaun’s comments, click the links. Shaun Newsome Vermilion River Part 1 Shaun Newsome Vermilion River Part 2
Senator Tim Grendell gave a rousing talk about what has happened since the suit was filed in 2004 and what we must be prepared to do to win this case at the Supreme Court. He likened the case to a horse race, where it doesn’t matter who is ahead in the back stretch or the final turn, but it is who crosses the finish line first who is the winner. Horses need to be fed, just as our suit needs to be fed to assure we have sufficient resources to bring all we need to the table. In addition to funding, we need the amicus briefs, the good public relations (like letters to the editor of newspapers) and we need to continue to get more people involved with our cause. Finally, when the oral arguments are heard, we need to fill buses and fill the courtroom to let the judges know that we are not just a few activists, but many ordinary people who are there to see that our private property rights are respected. To see the video clips of Senator Grendell’s comments, click the respective links. Senator Tim Grendell Part 1 Senator Tim Grendell Part 2
Breaking News – Local CPR to appear on FOXNEWS this Sunday April 25th
BREAKING NEWS: CPR on FoxNews This Sunday – April 25
CPR invites its members and readers to tune in to FOX News on Sunday, April 25. CPR Executive Director Carol Saviak will be interviewed live at 11:20 a.m. and will discuss an eminent domain abuse case in Auburn, New York.
The case involves several property owners whose businesses have been targeted for seizure by eminent domain by a local economic development agency to facilitate a larger scale development which is hoped will bring in greater tax revenue for the municipality. This case is similar to the Kelo v. New London case, and an example of the type of abuse which CPR worked to eliminate in Florida.
Thanks to Florida’s legislative leadership and former Governor Jeb Bush, Florida citizens have enjoyed the protection of the new law passed in the 2006 Session and a Constitutional Amendment passed by Florida voters for the last few years. Florida’s law is considered among the strongest post-Kelo reforms in the nation.
However, in other states which did not react to the Kelo decision with meaningful statutory or Constitutional reforms, these private-to-private transfers are still underway.
Tune in to FOX News on Sunday morning to see CPR weigh in on this current case and promote the protection of private property rights through this national news opportunity.
FOX News is currently airing a new series on property rights abuses nationwide, entitled, “It’s Your Land.” (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/its-your-land.htm) FOX News is seeking examples of property rights abuse across the country and property owners who would like to have their legal fight or abuse profiled should go to the FOXNEWS.com website and report this abuse.
We are trying to get a spot on this series for OLG. You can copy and paste the above link into your browser to view.
Poll shows 83% of Ohioans “strongly disagree” with Attorney General Richard Cordray’s position in Supreme Court Case Vast majority of Ohioans oppose limiting property rights
The following is an Ohio Lakefront Group Press Release by OLG President Tony Yankel.
Columbus (OH) – With the Ohio Supreme Court primed to hear arguments in a case involving property rights, a recent statewide survey shows that 83 percent of Ohioans strongly believe Attorney General Cordray’s position is wrong.
The case concerns the attorney general’s attempt to allow the state to take control of private property along Lake Erie without compensating the Ohioans who own the property.
Cordray, advancing a legal argument made by disgraced former Attorney General Marc Dann, wants Ohio property owners to pay a lease fee to use the property they’ve owned for decades. The attorney general’s argument ignores 200 years of Ohio law that supports property rights.
In the survey, 83% of Ohioans said they “strongly disagreed” with the idea that the state “should be able to force property owners to pay a lease fee to use part of the property the person already owns.”
“The survey confirms what we’ve known all along,” Ohio Lakefront Group president Tony Yankel said. “Ohioans think that paying a lease fee for property they already own is government intrusion on people’s rights.”
Additionally, 87% of citizens surveyed disagreed with Cordray’s position requiring homeowners near a lake, stream, or river to open their backyards to use by the public.
Yankel pointed out that Ohioans simply don’t want the government taking control of their property and telling them what to do.
“The right to own private property is sacred in Ohio,” said Yankel. “Ohioans just don’t tolerate the idea that the government can take control of their property.”
The survey by Washington-based Advantage, Inc. was conducted during the first week of March. The 802-person sample has a margin of error of plus or minus three and a half percentage points. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case later this year.
Ohio Supreme Court Accepts Jurisdiction over Property Rights and Attorney General Authority
Columbus (OH) – Today, the Ohio Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction in a case that will give it the opportunity to protect the property rights of all Ohioans and address the authority of the state attorney general to disregard the governor’s policy decisions.
“We look forward to the Supreme Court defending the Constitution and turning back this
Richard Cordray-led assault on private property rights,” said Tony Yankel, president of the Ohio
Lakefront Group. “By accepting jurisdiction on the attorney general’s authority, the Supreme
Court will also get a chance to stop activist attorneys general like Marc Dann, Elliot Spitzer and
Richard Cordray from pandering to special interests at the taxpayer’s expense.”
Since 2006, three different courts have ruled that Ohio property owners can’t be forced to open
their backyards to strangers. Despite that fact, special interest groups and Attorney General
Richard Cordray have continued their efforts to reverse more than 200 years of Ohio law.
A briefing schedule for the case hasn’t been set and the Supreme Court will likely hear oral
arguments this summer. A copy of the Court’s announcement is available online at http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-670.pdf
State Files Reply Brief to Ohio Supreme Court
Ohio Attorney General Cordray filed the State’s reply to the OLG brief and those of Scot Duncan and Homer Taft.
The brief begins asserting that no matter the outcome of the AG’s standing as viewed by the Supreme Court, the case should not be remanded to the Appellate Court, but should be heard directly by the Ohio Supreme Court. This is consistent with the OLG assertion in the case before the Supreme Court.
The AG continues to maintain that he has standing to defend the State sans any real named defendant. The brief cites nothing new in defending the AG’s standing, relying on an implicit responsibility to continue the defense of ODNR after Governor Strickland issued his policy statement and ODNR and the Governor took separate attorney representation. (ODNR and the Governor filed no further briefs with the Courts subsequent to taking new representation.)
Governor Strickland’s policy that was supposed to cause the ODNR to cease and desist from charging private property owners to lease their own land from the State. The Governor’s new policy, however, is moot since ODNR never released new administrative rules to eliminate the illegal practice and continues to send lease billings as before. As is required by ODNR, rules are reviewed and referred to JCARR periodically. Administrative rules were released last year to JCARR with NO CHANGES relative to the Governor’s policy.
ODNR contends that new administrative rules, reviewed in public meetings in 2008, are ready for release. They further state that comment and other input from those (2008) meetings have been incorporated to the extent possible. The public has not yet seen the new revised rules.
To read the complete brief, click the link: State’s Reply Brief Supreme Court
Briefs Filed to Ohio Supreme Court
OLG filed its brief to the Ohio Supreme Court on Friday. The brief in summary noted that when ODNR and the Governor withdrew from the lawsuit, the Attorney General lost standing. Since ODNR is the sole party responsible for the management of Lake Erie, by withdrawing, the Attorney General could not defend that responsibility. However, should the Court determine that the AG does have standing, we agree with the State’s brief that the case should not be remanded to the Appeal Court since all the briefs from all parties were provided to that Court for their decision in the appeal.The full OLG brief can be accessed through this link: OLGSupremeCourtbrief
NWF/OEC also filed their brief restating the State’s argument that the AG should have standing in the case. Access the full brief here: NWF_OECSupremeCourtbrief
An Amicus brief was also filed by NWF representing a number of environmental and sportman’s organizations basically stating that the AG is responsible for defending the environment in Ohio which includes Lake Erie. Access the full brief here: Amicusbrief
Co-plaintiffs Homer Taft and Scot Duncan filed supplementary briefs further asserting the AG’s lack of authority to appeal our lawsuit after the ODNR and Governor withdrew and took separate attorney representation. They provied additional case law to support their assertion. Their briefs can be accessed through these links: Duncanbrief 20TaftSupport
Ohio Lakefront Group Press Conference in Columbus
January 20, 2010 – Republican state lawmakers call on Ohio Department of Natural Resources to stop sending letters demanding lease payments to lakefront property owners on land that they already own. State Legislators Tim Grendell, Tom Patton, Bill Seitz, Nan Baker and John Adams were among the speakers. This has been an going battle concerning Lake Erie shoreline deeds:
Here is a copy of the release:
Columbus (OH)– Legislators and property rights activists today called into question recent actions of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR).
The issue stems from a lawsuit over property rights and whether the state will be allowed to reverse centuries of law to allow public access to previously private property along Lake Erie.
Nearly 3 years ago, Governor Strickland ordered ODNR to stop enforcing a policy that required landowners to lease their own property from the state. However, ODNR has continued to enforce the leases.
“ODNR has apparently gone rogue,” State Senator Bill Seitz said. “Governor Strickland and Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher have repeatedly pledged their support for Ohio property owners. It’s baffling how an agency under the Governor’s control could refuse to comply with his instructions.”
Seitz was joined by colleagues Representative John Adams (R-Urbana), Senator Tom Patton (R-Strongsville), Senator Tim Grendell (R-Chesterland), Representative Nan Baker (R-Westlake), and Tony Yankel from the Ohio Lakefront Group, which filed the initial lawsuit.
State Representative Nan Baker says she’s met with dozens of citizens who have expressed outrage over ODNR’s actions.
“The Governor directed ODNR to stop charging citizens to lease their own property,” Baker said. “Yet I’ve talked to dozens of property owners who are being threatened with legal action if they don’t pay those same lease fees.”
The legislators pointed to the Governor’s campaign pledge to the Lake Erie landowners.
The Governor is previously on the record saying, “I have concluded that the lakefront owners rightfully own the land as specified in their deeds,” and that he and Lee Fisher believe “the State of Ohio has gone too far and is unjustified in its attempt to take this land from those who rightly own it.”
State Representative John Adams says he is worried that the Attorney General and ODNR are trampling Ohio citizens’ rights.
“Private Property rights are among the inalienable rights guaranteed in our Constitution,” Adams said. “Ohioans should be very worried that the state thinks it can take a portion of your backyard without paying you for it.”
The lawsuit began in 2004 when property owners sued ODNR to prevent them from charging owners a lease fee for their own property. In 2007, Governor Strickland directed ODNR to drop the case and honor the deeds of property owners.
While ODNR initially complied with the Governor’s order, former Attorney General Marc Dann vowed to continue the litigation on his own. After Dann’s resignation in disgrace, Richard Cordray continued to press the lawsuit. The property owners have prevailed in Lake County Court, Federal District Court, and the 11th District Court of Appeals. The case is now on appeal in the Ohio Supreme Court.
State Senator Tom Patton said it’s important to remember that all Ohioans could be affected by the outcome of this case.
“This case is far bigger than Lake Erie or Northern Ohio,” Patton said. “Every Ohioan who lives on a lake, river or stream should be concerned with the state’s attitude.”
The Attorney General argued unsuccessfully before the 11th District Court of Appeals that the State of Ohio gained ownership in 1803 of the beds of all navigable waters of the state, not just Lake Erie, up to the ordinary high water mark. If this legal position were adopted by Ohio courts, it could radically alter the last 200 years of Ohio law governing ownership of inland lakes, rivers and streams.
State Senator Tim Grendell said that ODNR’s current behavior is unacceptable.
“ODNR’s position is directly contrary to the governor’s stated policies. Either Attorney General Richard Cordray and lawyers for ODNR have misrepresented the Governor’s position in the Supreme Court, or Ted Strickland and Lee Fisher have broken yet another campaign promise,” Grendell explained. “Ohioans have a right to know where the Governor stands on honoring the deeds of all Ohioans.”
The Ohio Supreme Court is currently deciding whether to accept an appeal from the Attorney General and environmental groups.
Following are video links of excerpts of the press conference!
OLG President Tony Yankel – Introduction and Background
Representative Nan Baker, Sentator Tom Patton, Senator Tim Grendell, Representative John Adams
United States Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Florida Beach Case
United States Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Florida Beach Case
The following is from Michigan Save Our Shoreline (SOS), who you remember fought to keep Michigan private beach property from trespassers and lost. They have been following a similar case in Florida and filed an Amicus brief in the case.
SOS Florida Case
The state of Florida enacted a law saying, in essence, that the state owns that part of the beach restored by the government. Homeowners on the beach in Destin, Florida challenged the law, saying it resulted in a taking of their right to own to the water, which in Florida is the mean high tide line. The Florida Supreme Court held that the law did not violate the constitution by taking property from the homeowners because their right to own to the water never existed in the first place.
This was the same trick that the state of Michigan used in 2005 to turn Michigan’s beaches into a public thoroughfare. In the case of Glass v. Goeckel, the Michigan Supreme Court simply ignored 160 years of case law holding that waterfront owners had “exclusive use of the bank and shore,” and created a public right to walk the dry beach. By using its courts to change the law, Michigan effectively took our private beach rights and turned them into public property, thereby avoiding the constitutional requirement that it pay just compensation.
Five justices seemed quite critical of Florida’s bold move. Some pointed out that under Florida’s view, the state could expand the beach simply to make room for spring breakers to party in front of the waterfront homes. Justice Scalia even proposed a name for the new law: the “Spring Break Act,” to much laughter from the Court audience. If it wanted, Florida might even build an amusement park in front of the homes. He told Florida’s lawyer that the common law in most states was that beachfront owners owned to the water, and that beachfront owners would be surprised to learn they did not own to the water. Justice Breyer and the new Justice, Sotomayor, argued that the beachfront owners lost nothing. In response to the suggestion that an owner might now find a hot dog vendor out on the beach in front of their home, Justice Sotomayor pointed out that before the re-nourishment, that vendor could have stayed in the same spot, although he would have been in the water, and the landowner would have been powerless to stop him.
The key to the decision will likely be Justice Kennedy, who pointed out concerns on both sides of the issue, but who seemed concerned about a taking. To the argument that the landowners received rights from the government equivalent to the rights they lost (and thereby really lost nothing), the conservative justices suggested that the way to decide that was to find a taking occurred, and then send the case back to the Florida courts for a determination of the value of the loss, if any. This seems to be the best suggestion we heard.
We expect a decision on the case in the spring or early summer of 2010. For more information, look for the SOS Amicus Brief and a transcript of the Supreme Court hearing at http://www.saveourshoreline.org. You may find the transcript very interesting, while long to read.
Contribute Now!
What is your private property worth? A small investment now in OLG membership can help us fight the State’s taking of the same property on which you pay taxes.