A Welcome, a Thank You, and a Bit of Reminiscing!

It is with much pleasure that I introduce and welcome William Adkisson as our new president. Fresh input and leadership will have a very favorable effect on the League. We are very fortunate to have someone of Adkisson's ability who is willing to take on the task. In addition to his business and leadership experience, Bill has a sincere love and appreciation for the principles that our League was founded to protect. Since I will continue to work for the League as a member of the board, I look forward to working with Bill and extend my sincere congratulations and support!

I also thank all of our members for their support and involvement during the past three years. It has truly been an honor to represent our fine League through its inception. It has also been my rare privilege to work with the extraordinary caliber of people that are involved in the League. Their level of expertise and sincere regard for the interests of fellow property owners is unparalleled. May such tribes increase.

The accomplishments of our League is something for which each member can be proud! We have come a long way since the meeting that culminated in our present organization. Three years ago about forty property owners attended a task force hearing on the preservation of "Biodiversity." Most of them verbally expressed their concerns over increasing regulatory burdens. The consensus was clear, "The most endangered of species is our private property rights!" Impressed with the eloquent persuasions of this group, I solicited names of those interested in forming an organization to represent the interests of property owners. Thirty two property owners -- nearly everyone present -- signed up. In just three years, our presence - and influence - have grown substantially.

We are finally receiving opportunities to offer input on issues statewide. For this promising development, we owe thanks to several legislators - some of whom are themselves League members! The League has also participated in various local issues and, we believe, succeeded in several favorable resolutions for property owners. By being active legislatively, distributing information, hosting or representing property owners at forums, and in some cases, conducting surveys to present property owner's interests, our League has made considerable strides. Yet there is much more to be done. The best asset the League has is its members. Remember, your influence counts - if you use it!!

Thanks again to all of you, and best wishes to our new president!!!

Rick Brueggemann,
Past President

A Message from the President

Thanks to all for the honor of becoming your president. Your League has come far in it's short, 3 plus years. This year will see us involved in several pieces of legislation proposed for the 2000 legislature. Our immediate hope is to provide guidance in the areas of Planning & Zoning Laws' changes and the mandated evaluation, by any state agency, of laws or regulations that may constitutionally be interpreted as "taking" of private property prior to their enactment. More on the legislative process as we develop our strategies.

I challenge each of our members to induct one new League member now. Ask them if they are willing to give voice to our cause of continuing to seek the freedoms our founding fathers envisioned. Ask them if they will make that call to a legislator to reinforce a position we may take on a law. Ask them if they will stand with us at county fairs and other meetings to tell our story to others who can help us make a difference.

I ask for your ideas during the year. Most of all I ask for your prayers to have God provide me the wisdom to be a caretaker of your sacred rights.

Respectfully,
william h. adkisson,
President

Propane Storage

Anyone who stores more than 2.380 gallons of propane on their farm or business, at any one time, will need to submit a risk management plan to the EPA by June 21, 1999.

If you heat out buildings or dry corn, you may want to contact your propane dealer to see what you can do to stay out of the program.

Fencing Out Snakes Challenged

In Fishkill, New York, Jay Montgort put a fence around his stone company's property to keep out rattlesnakes which are poisonous and deadly. He believed that you should be able to keep deadly things off your property. But that was not the case.

In New York, timber rattlesnakes are a threatened species and the state claims that the fence violated New York's Endangered Species Act.

Lawyers representing the state are asking that the 4-foot wire-mesh fence be torn down before the snakes stir from hibernation. The state claims the fence would have the effect of disturbing the dozens of snakes by blocking them from their usual places to hunt and reproduce.

Boone County Historic Preservation Review Board

In the February 25th edition, of the Recorder newspapers, there was a letter to the editor from Bob Maurer, Chairman of the boone County Historic Preservation Review Board.

He had been asked why the Preservation Board allows historic houses or other structures to be torn down. The response was that in Boone county there is no law or regulation that states what can be done with historic property and that it is up to the owner. The Historic Preservation Review board trys to educate the property owner as to why they should not tear down historic buildings on their property.

The League would like to respond to the article by saying that we believe history should be preserved through education and co-operation not regulation.

Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor:

In your Winter, 1999 issue of League of Kentucky Property Owner's News Digest, you stated "The League feels the preservation of greenspace is desired by nearly everyone. However, no landowner should be forced to pay for - or provide - greenspace for the public at their own expense. The cost of preserving our greenspace should be borne by all of us."

In an earlier newsletter, you stated the PACE program was not a good program and the League did not support it. In my view, the PACE program accomplishes the above stated objectives; the program preserves the land for the use of farming (greenspace), it is paid for by the use of taxes (which is borne by all of the public) and the land owner voluntarily provides greenspace (not forced).

Since the PACE program accomplishes the League's objective concerning the preservation of greenspace, why doesn't the League support PACE? In your earlier article about PACE, I believe you considered PACE as a "taking." I do not see how it can be considered a "taking" if the landowner enters into the program voluntarily and is compensated for the rights he is selling. How is this any different than the selling of mineral rights of a piece of property? I look forward to your reply and please address this in a future newsletter.
Sincerely,
John H. Benton,
Walton, KY

Response from the Editor

We appreciate the letter as it has brought out an issue in need of clarification. First, we certainly did not intend to give the impression that preservation of greenspace was an objective of the League. The League's objectives, as laid out in our "Statement of Principle and Purpose," are primarily for the defense of private property rights.

However, the choice of words in our Winter 1999 issue certainly merits an expanded explanation. In that article, we were acknowledging the aesthetic value of greenspace, but warning against methods of preserving it that could adversely impact a landowner's property rights. In considering an equitable solution (other than down-zoning), we recommended that the costs be borne by all of us. By "all of us" we meant those to whom the greenspace would be of value. Expanding taxing authority and/or creating another bureaucratic agency would not fall under our definition of what is equitable. As our federal Supreme Court has warned, "the power to tax is the power to destroy!"

You correctly pointed out that the League did not, nor does it now favor the PACE program. According to the information we have on PACE (Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easements), it moves in the direction of expanding governmental power. The program was initiated with federal funding - ultimately garnered from taxpayers who may not even "benefit" from PACE. Moreover, there are many restrictions involved in the partnership with PACE that we feel most property owners would come to regret. If so there is little they can do - the easement is forever. In effect, the property is reduced to that held under a feudal tenure.

Your analogizing PACE with that of selling mineral rights is also very apropos. When you sell a "conservation easement, " it is very much a sale - a sale of usage rights. Furthermore, the property must be governed by a conservation plan as approved by the Soil and Conservation District. Many of those who sold the mineral rights to their land thought it was a grand deal when they did so - much to their future regret (or that of their heirs). Many accounts of anguish have been aired on this subject in Eastern Kentucky. In one reported case, a drill rig drilled through the roof of a house, through the bathtub, and into the earth to obtain a core sample. Yet, often, such was the unforeseen risk of selling your mineral rights.

Another significant concern is the expanded governmental ownership of land. Currently the federal government owns well over 1/3 of the entire United States. What would this number be if state holdings were added to this? The fact that the PACE program would intensify this trend is of itself a valid reason for caution.

Noah's Ark in the 90's

And the Lord spoke to Noah and said, "In six months I'm going to make it rain until the whole earth is covered with water and all the evil people are destroyed. But I want to save a few good people, and two of every kind of living things on the planet. I am commanding you to build an Ark." And in a flash of lightning, He delivered the specifications for an Ark. "Okay," said Noah, trembling with fear and fumbling with the blueprints. "Six months, and it starts to rain," thundered the Lord. "You'd better have the Ark completed, or learn to swim for a very long time." Six months passed, the skies clouded up and rain began to fall. The Lord saw that Noah was sitting in his front yard, weeping. And there was no Ark, "Noah," shouted the Lord, "Where is the Ark?" "Lord, please forgive me!" begged Noah. "I did my best. But there were big problems. First, I had to get a building permit for the Ark construction project, and your plans didn't meet code. So I had to hire an engineer to re-draw the plans. Then I got into a big fight over whether or not the Ark needed a fire sprinkler system. Then my neighbor objected, claiming I was violating zoning by building the Ark in my front yard, so I had to get a variance from the city planning commission. Then I had problems getting enough wood for the Ark, because there was a ban on cutting trees to save the Spotted Owl. I had to convince the U.S. Fish and Wildlife that I need the wood to save the Owls. But they wouldn't let me catch any owls. So, no owls. The carpenters formed a union and went out on strike. I had to negotiate a settlement with the National Labor Relations Board before anyone would pick up a saw or hammer. Now we have sixteen carpenters going on the boat, and still no owls. "Then I started gathering up animals, and got sued by an animal rights group. They objected to me taking only two of each kind. Just when I got the suit dismissed, EPA notified me that I couldn't complete the Ark without filing an environmental impact statement on your proposed flood. They didn't take kindly to the idea that they had no jurisdiction over the conduct of a Supreme Being. Then the Army Corps of Engineers wanted a map of the proposed flood plain. I sent them a globe. Right now, I'm still trying to resolve a complaint from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over how many Croatians I'm supposed to hire. The IRS has seized all my assets, claiming I'm trying to avoid paying taxes by leaving the country. And I just got a notice from the state about owing them some kind of use tax. I really don't think I can finish the Ark for at least another five years," Noah wailed. The sky began to clear. The sun began to shine. A rainbow arched across the sky. Noah looked up and smiled. "You mean you're not going to destroy the earth?" Noah asked hopefully. "No," said the Lord sadly. "The government already has."

-Submitted by:
A League Member