Property Rights Trend Grows: Asset Forfeiture

TPPF has been talking reforming aset forfeiture for a couple years now, and now the CLU and Grover Norquist have joined forces to bring us Fix Forfeiture, a 501(c)(4).

Here’s what Fix Forefeiture wants to fix:

  • Ensuring that no individual can have property forfeited without first being convicted of a crime.
  • Addressing conflicts of interest created when the government agency responsible for an asset forfeiture retains those assets.
  • Adding due process protections for the individual involved in an asset forfeiture.
  • Establishing reporting requirements for government agencies that seize property.
  • Exempting certain property from civil asset forfeiture laws that would create undue hardships for the property owner, such as a homestead or a vehicle.

Lancaster Online

FixForfeiture.Org

Institute for Justice has been litigating these case. The same Institute for Justice that represented Kelo in Kelo v. City of New London that set of eminent domain reforms across the country,

10 Years Post- Kelo. The Libertarian Celebration Lives

Libertarians and private property rights activists will not stop talking about Kelo. There are books and movies afoot about Kelo.

During this week’s 10 year anniversary, the libertarian presses were on fire:

Win for Raisins is a Win for Property Rights

Just Compensation for Raisins. Raisins Stand United. California rainsins grew up to be activists that won.

The US Supreme Court ruled in support of raisin producers this week by striking down a New Deal Era provision that allowed the FDA to take a certain portion of raisin crops to control raisin prices. 

The FDA exercised this taking in 2002-2003; opening the U.S. market up to foreign raisins.

Do you know where your raisins come from? The Supreme Court favors them coming from the US. That might be a stretch, but the Supreme Court does favor farmers retaining their crops.

WallStreet Journal   Washington Post/Volokh Conspiracy   Horne V. Dept. of Agriculture  Agrilife LawBlog Above the Law

 

Land Use Legal Trend: Low Income Housing Requirements. Are these Local Ordinances Inverse Condemnation?

The California Supreme Court this week ruled that developers can be required to provide a percentage of below market cost affordable housing.

Developers had argued that such a requirement was a taking of their property. The Court rejected this argument and found that local governments have “broad discretion to regulate the use of real property to serve the legitimate interests of the general public.”

Los Angeles Times

Relocation Costs. Some States have it. Some States Do Not. Some States Have it & Refuse to Pay.

Even states that offer relocation costs, don’t do it readily. In the case of Garden Gove, California, it took 2 judges to force payment of relocation costs to low income residents.

A mobile home park was taken via eminent domain to make way for the Great Wolf water park. Garden Gove is now ordered to pay  $141,540 to the displaced residents.

Orange County Register

Eminent Domain to Protect Against Flooding

On 2 separate coasts, 2 separate governmental entities are moving forward with eminent domain to build new water projects to protect cities from flooding.

  • In New Orleans, the federal ARMY Corps of Engineers plans to use eminent domain against homes and businesses in a flood plain as part of the comprehensive hurricane protection plan. Government moves fast folks, it’s been almost a decade since Hurricane Katrina. Times-Picayune
  • In Sacramento, the West Sacramento Levee Projects wants to seize 22 homes to expand and modernize the levee to protect Sacremento from flooding. CBS Sacramento

How many condemnations does it take to build high speed rail?

California is actively building high speed rail. This week the State Public Works Board approved its 246th condemantion resolution since 2013. Fresno Bee

Not only is aquiring land time consuming, but California’s experience is also teaching us that high speed rail is a lengthy process. To move high speed rail along more quickly, the California legislature added a budget rider that will:

  • reduce the volume of reports managers of the rail project are required to provide the Legislature
  • change the qualifications required for certain members of the project’s peer review group by including people with experience in large infrastructure projects other than high-speed rail.

To those who say transperancy is cut, the California politicians say- it doesn’t harm transperancy, it enhances efficiency.

Sacramento Bee

Denbury 6+ Years of Common Carrier Status in Dispute

Earlier this month, Denbury appealed the most recent appellate decision in its case aginst Texas Rice Land Partners. Denbury argues that the Court of Appeals did not follow the Texas Supreme Court’s test for common carrier, estbalished by this lengthy legal saga.

Denbury goes on to argue that the TX Supreme Court has new common carrier issues it needs to look at too. Such as- Is there common carrier status in §2.105 of the Texas Business Organizations Code?

Common Carrier: The Issue that keeps giving and will ultimately bring legislation to resolve a decade of legal wrangling.

Denbury v.TX Rice Land Partners   

Southeast Texas Record