Installation of Directors Event
Tuesday, January 14, 1997
At Crestview Lake Community Center
870 Sharon Drive (off Zig Zag Road)
Florence, KY
7:30 PM
All members are invited.

Hage Speaks to Members

Our first general meeting on August 20 was a success. Over 250 people attended to hear Wayne Hage of Reno, Nevada, talk on property rights and takings. "Control of property rights is ownership," he said, and the Fifth Amendment guarantees compensation. He did say that each situation is unique and mist be handled as such, but he advocates going through the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, not administrative courts. When you feel the government is making unfair demands on your property, Hage suggests that you comply fully; taping any conversations you have with the officials. Comply, but carefully calculate the costs to you, then hand them the bill. This gets the situation thrown into the U.S. Court of Federal Claims that has to hear the property argument and whether it is fair. "This is their (any government agency's) worst nightmare," he says. Hage recommends several books on the subject: Storm Over the Rangelands, by Hage, himself, on private rights in federal lands, and Beat the Devil, How to Get Government Regulators Off Your Back - Permanently! By Richard Mackie. (Solution Publishers 1-800-689-4075) The next general meeting of the League will be in the spring.

Board Members to be Elected

Enclosed is a ballot to elect 5 members to our League Board. As stated in the by-laws, members are to be elected to a two-year term. The board is made up of eleven members: 5 general property owners, 2 developers, 2 part-time farmers, and 2 full-time farmers. Therefore, half of the Board will elected yearly. Please mark your ballot and send it to us now. You are also invited to attend the Installation of our new directors.

Our First Year In Review
by Rick Brueggemann, President

The League's first year has been a productive remarkable growth, especially for a new organization. The continual advance in membership illustrates the hard work of many members as well as the existing need in Kentucky for what the League had to offer. Our potential impact is already evidenced by the genuine interest shown to our group by many good Kentucky legislators. For obvious reasons, this is a very valuable asset.

The League has undertaken or participated in many ventures during the past months, most of which have proven successful - some of which are still on going. For example, during the most recent General Assembly, the League actively supported HB255 (state "Right to Farm") and HB255 ("Takings"). While HB335 passes overwhelmingly,HB255 was held up by one person in committee - in spite of the fact that it had enough co-sponsors to easily secure its passage. Last spring, the League rallied to the assistance of Farm Bureau and local farmers to secure its passage of a county "Right to Farm" ordinance. We had a booth at number of the county fairs in the area to answer questions and promote our interests. Among other involvements, the League's board of directors has been working closely with a group of dedicated individuals in Grant County to effectively address their concerns. This may very well result in the creation of the first "distinct" local chapter of the League - something we plan to eventually have in every region of Kentucky.

Aside from the "exterior" achievements of the League, the success of its prevalent functions is also worthy of mention. In addition to the quantity, the quality of membership in the League is particularly impressive. Our membership directory can boast the most successful as well as prominent individuals in the community. Such as alliance will greatly aid in our efforts to restore a balance and promote respect to the rights of property owners. The first general membership meeting of the League also rates as one of the year's highlights. The guest speaker, Wayne Hage, was very informative and provided much "hard earned" insight as to the proper procedures for achieving compensation - and defending against - property takings. All in all we have accomplished much and have come a long way in the space of one year. It has not been without the hard work and sacrifice of time and money on the part of many people. On behalf of the League, sincerely thank all of you.

We will soon see the election results of five board members whose seat is currently up. Although may one of the current board members would be sorely missed, we also look forward to the participation of other dedicated individuals. Despite and future changes in the make-up of the board, we need more members to volunteer to serve and/or chair certain committees for the League. As we grow - which we must - our accomplishments will increase, but only at the rate of the work that is done. It is important for you to get involved. So please, particularly if you are asked, volunteer to serve on a committee.

As our second year begins, please promptly renew your membership during the month in which you joined the League. We must maintain a strong and dedicated membership in order to realize the objectives for which we now are laboriously laying the foundation. Remember this is your League and you are its most valuable asset.

Logging Regulations on the Horizon
By: Cathy Beil

Gov. Paul Patton opposed more government regulation of logging during his gubernatorial campaign. How, in a major policy reversal, he has decided Kentucky must regulate logging on private land.

New regulations, to be included in the Kentucky Forest Stewardship Act, could result in substantial burdens on property owners.

Since over 90 percent of all forestry property in Kentucky is privately held, private property owners must and should be concerned.

Matth. Toebben, from our Board of Directors, was invited to join the task force in Frankfurt to discuss the government proposals. Differences of opinion and consensus fluctuated throughout the four-day session.

Toebben was concerned that of the 26 people designated to participate on the task force, only three were property owners from the state of Kentucky.

Toebben believes input from the Forestry department to educate property owners on how to grow future healthy forestry is important for property owners and the forestry industry to thrive.

"A great concern at this time however, is the minor representation by the property owners. How these regulations are written to control the forestry industry and the property owner in Kentucky must give the property owners input," Toebben said. He continues to wrestle with them on this point.

The Logging proposals would ass the force of law to what are now voluntary programs. They would require that "every" logging operation be conducted by someone who has passes the state's master-logging training, focusing "enforcement efforts" on loggers who do not comply.

As tobacco, on of the main agricultural products in Kentucky, is likely to be diminished, Toebben points out that it is becoming more and more important to look to the future in forestry to maintain a healthy timberland throughout the state.

He hopes the coming legislation will be best management practices in a "volunteer" basis and looks for a reasonable resolution considering property owners.

Toebben and the League oppose any legislation, which would not guarantee extensive input from property owners.

What's Fair?

An article in Reader's Digest (Mugged by the Law, pages 165-166, April, 1996) tells the story of Brandt Child's struggle with his property rights. Child purchased 400 acres of grazing land in Utah. While clearing brush, he was stopped by the US, Army Corps of Engineers for "improperly 'filling' 1/25 of an acre of wetlands." He had to restore it and found out 3 ponds could not be used without Army Corps' permission. Then the US Fish and Wildlife Service informed him that the Kanab ambersnail lived on 100 acres of his land, so then he needed permission through the Clean Water and Endangered Species Acts to do anything with his land. Alarmed one day to see geese living on one of the ponds, he feared they would eat the ambersnails so he called the Federal Wildlife Service. When a state trooper and wildlife officer shower up with shotguns, Child called the local newspaper, fearing they were going to shoot the geese. When the reporter showed up, the men decided to trap the birds and move them.

Child entered into negotiation with The Nature Conservancy, a group that often buys property like this, later selling it to the federal agencies when Congress appropriates the funds. But they only want to buy the water, denying Child water rights and ruining the rest of his land. "We're environmentalists, too, who want to preserve things for our children," Child insists. "But we also want to preserve our heritage. What has happened to our property rights? It feels like they've been taken away."

Farming Regulations to Increase

The Agriculture Water Quality Act, Senate Bill 241, was passed by the Kentucky General Assembly in 1994. The Agriculture Water Quality Authority was established under the provisions of this act.

This will require all land users with ten or more acres to develop and implement a water quality plan based on the statewide plan.

The League attempted to investigate the plan and what it would mean for local farmers. The framework of each committee was such that influence was to be generated from farm operators. But it seems this may have been a ploy to appease the farmer and lend credence to the plan.

Every farmer will be given a fairly large booklet. This book will contain several sections such as, fuel storage, etc. Farmers will have to complete sections of the book to record their "plan."

Before a farmer can receive a load of fuel, he must have a plan. Before a fuel operator can deliver fuel, he too, must have a plan. Some of these regulations can prove to be not only time consuming, but also financially crippling. Safety takes a few steps backward in certain regulations. We will keep you informed.

"This is an age in which one cannot find common sense without a search warrant."
-George Will

The following article appeared in the Dayton Daily News on November 12 of this year. The League felt it was such a powerful article; it should be shared with you.

Don't Expand EPA's right to seize property

President Bill Clinton is seeking even more power from the federal government to seize the property of those accused of crimes, this time planning to enlarge the confusing morass of environmental laws and regulations that have converted numerous property owners into unwitting criminals. It's ironic that the president should be seeking to extend this power just when the abuse of forfeiture power in other areas is creating more widespread concern.

A bipartisan coalition in Congress, led by Illinois Republican and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, is attempting to curb the federal forfeiture power in drug cases, not because members want liberalize drug laws but because they dislike the abuse of power.

A federal appeals court in 1992 said it was "troubled by the government's view that any property, whether it be a hobo's hovel or the Empire State Building can be seized by the government because the owner, regardless of his or her past criminal record, engages in a single drug transaction."

Among the abuses have been the seizures of an airplane from a charter-service operator who had hired the plane out to an alleged drug dealer and the seizure of cash from a nursery owner who fit a "profile" because he was black, had a lot of cash and was taking an airplane flight.

Environmental Protection Agency administrator Carol Browner has made it clear that those accused of being polluters should be treated like suspected drug dealers. "If you're polluting the public's air and water," she said on CNN, "then the benefits you derive, the assets you have, can be taken. This is what the president is proposing."

Unfortunately, the EPA has traditionally had an elastic view of who constitutes an evil polluter. As journalist James Bovard noted in a recent Wall Street Journal article, the EPA notified a tuxedo-rental outfit in Tulsa that it would be responsible to pay for cleanup of a Superfund site because in 1872 it had paid somebody $14 to haul trash there. People have been denied the use of their property because inspectors claim to have found endangered species there. If the EPA had forfeiture power, would that property simply be taken, without compensation?

The Small Business Administration estimates that it costs individuals, businesses and state and local governments $168 billion a year to comply with federal environmental laws. Clinton apparently is not content to force people to spend money; he wants to take everything they have.