A Message from the President

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."
John Adams

Where do we want to go? Your League Board has been weighing that question during the last several months. We have decided to make these objectsour highest priorities this year:

MEMBERSHIP -- (a) Increase our strength as an organization by asking each of our existing members to recruit at least one new member before our annual meeting in November. (b) Conduct orientation meetings around the state to solicit new members from new areas. Ultimately, our goal is to have several chapters throughout the Commonwealth.

LEGISLATION -- Develop specific legislative strategies to present to our legislators prior to the year 2000, session. Some specific areas we are considering:
(a) Requiring all state agencies to evaluate impact of any regulation or legislation on property rights prior to enacting.
(b) Evaluate any Planning and Zoning changes proposed by legislators. (We presently meet monthly with the legislative subcommittee for planning and zoning in Frankfort to follow these activities.)

Respectfully,
william h. adkisson,
President

Annual League Meeting Update:

Our annual meeting is set for Thursday, November 4th at 7:00 p.m. at the Triple Crown Country Club. We are pleased to announce that our speaker will be Congressman Ron Paul from Texas.

The Takings Bill

On June 17th, I met with Representative Perry Clark, Dem. (Louisville) and Norman Davis of Take Back KY. The Takings Bill is ready to be pre-filed by Rep. Clark. In the Senate, it will be Senator Roeding and Senator Virgil Moore. We are building a strong coalition of support for this bill.

Bernie Kunkel,
Legislation Chairperson

Ozone Update

We won on ozone and 2.5 m particulate matter standards, sort of. On Friday, May 14th, the U.S. Court of Appeals, by a 2 to 1 vote, held that the construction of the Clean Air Act relied upon by EPA support both its revised ozone and PM Standards effects and "unconstitutional delegation of legislative power". The court agreed that these standards are arbitrarily based on politics, not science.

This is a two edged sword. On one side, the court has said EPA needs to justify its standards on health effects. On the other side, it almost suggests that based on health effects alone every anti pollution standard should be set to zero.

Letter to the Editor

In the Spring newsletter there was a brief discussion about open areas being preserved - what is sometimes referred to as "greenspace."

I am very much in favor of land being left "open" for use for farming, hunting and other enjoyable activities. However, an examination of this topic shows why many people are totally opposed to government funding of such programs. If we examine this issue, we find that government is a major cause of the decline of open areas.

Consider first the issue of Property Taxes. This absurd program pervades our entire system. It dates back at least to the Middle Ages and possibly much earlier. One of the examples in British history of this horrendous system came with William the Conqueror; after he won control of England, he ordered a complete survey of the country. This was designed so he could take as much wealth as he could from the people. In a real sense, the property tax illustrates that citizens are not allowed to own homes, farms or land. They have things in their names, but each year they must give a certain amount of wealth to the state; if they do not do so, the government will add extra fees & penalties. If these are not also paid, then the government will put the property up for auction. Someone pays the necessary amount of wealth and then gets a "deed" so he or she can hold title until the next set of fees (taxes) is due. This process is repeated once or more each year depending on how many branches of government are involved. The amount charged is totally arbitrary, based on "appraisals" which can vary widely. The appraisals are as high as the "state" can make them since that justifies taking more fees (taxes). If the alleged farm owner or home owner disagrees, the appeals process is inconvenient and very limited. Take this whole system and it is easy to see that some people can have their property taxes so high that they cannot afford to keep it. It must be sold, possibly for a subdivision, shopping mall or other area that is not a "greenspace." Government has thus caused the problem.

A second example would be the difficulties caused by various aspects of the income tax. One would be the inheritance tax. If more than one person in a family owns a farms, for example, and one of them dies, the inheritance tax can be so high that the survivor(s) do not have enough money to pay it. Again the land may have to be sold to a developer because of this government-caused problem. Yearly income taxes can be so high that they would cause the same problem. Both of these taxes are, of course, part of the Communist program. Those who think that is a radical statement can easily confirm, that what I have just written is correct; go to the library and get a copy of THE COMMUNIST MANIFEST. Check the part where Karl Marx summarizes his points into ten statements; item #2 is the income tax.

A third example has been discussed in a recent newspaper article about the decline in the size of a local Nursery. The reason for the problem is that a government agency is apparently going to force it to give up land because government has decided the land should be used for something else. This is not a unique story since government agencies often make such decisions about land use.

Each of these examples shows that government is the cause of the problem on many occasions. The answer, if one wants to maintain open space, farms, areas for entertainment, etc., is to let people alone in using their land for what they want. More specifically, the answer is not to institute new government programs that take even more tax money from the people, but to abolish existing programs. The Property Tax should be done away with completely. Last November Kentucky voters gave overwhelming approval to a law allowing the legislature to do this. It is appalling that such a law was necessary since the legislature should never have had the power to tax property. Now that there is this new situation, we should work very hard to eliminate this obnoxious tax on all items, not just motor vehicles. The next step should be to work to reduce and then to eliminate completely any inheritance or income taxes in the state. Of course, elimination of the same should then be started on the national level by abolishing the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Finally, there should be very rigid restrictions of government power to control what property is used for. Should government even have any power to tell people that they cannot farm or live in their homes? Such restrictions are difficult to rationalize.

If we followed the above program, much of the decline in open areas would end. We do not need more government programs; we need the elimination of existing obstacles the government throws at us.

Lawrence R. Borne, Ph.D.
Edgewood, KY

Losing Pensions by the Acres

Many farmers measure their retirement plan by the acre. Farmers want the option to sell their land in lots of 10 acres, but the size may increase to 40.

In the last eight years, rural landowners have subdivided more that 4,700 acres of farmland - an initial step toward developing the land for housing. County officials fear this trend threatens the signature farmland of the Bluegrass and are considering two proposals to stem rural development.

The first proposal would be to use millions of dollars in public money to pay farmers who agree not to develop their land.

The second proposal would quadruple the minimum lot size for rural homes, presumably thinning demand for the lots.

What do you think of these proposals? Send us your thoughts.

Supreme Court Decision A Win for Property Rights

Property owners have a right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court said on May 24 in a ruling that is a victory for landowners who have been seeking greater legal access for resolving their takings claims.

"This is a decision that's good for home builders and good for communities. Now, citizens sitting as jurors will be able to protect the property rights of their neighbors and help local governments legally plan for growth," said NAHB President Charlie Ruma.

The high court's ruling involved the case of City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., which began in 1981 when a developer, Del Monte Dunes, presented initial plans to build a subdivision on its beachfront property in California. Ensuing negotiations with land use officials were frustrating. When Del Monte submitted an application to build a 344-unit residential subdivision, officials said they would approve only 264 units. When Del Monte scaled its proposal down to 264 units, officials demanded 224 units. A subsequent Del Monte plan for 224 units was rejected as well.

Five years, five formal decisions, and 19 site plans later, Del Monte's final, 190-unit application was also denied. The city's position left no portion of the property that could be developed. After required set-asides for infrastructure access, beachfront access, viewshed preservation, a buffer for adjacent state parklands and protection of habitat for the endangered Smith's blue butterfly, not one inch of the site was available for home construction.

Because Del Monte was denied all economically viable use of the property, it sued the city for an unconstitutional taking. Four years later, a jury awarded $1.45 million to Del Monte as compensation for the city's unconstitutional taking of its property. The Ninth Circuit upheld the jury's verdict, as the Supreme Court did last month.

In 1998 NAHB filed an amicus brief in the case with the Supreme Court as part of its campaign to protect and advance the property rights of its members.

The Monterey decision is the fourth Supreme Court win for property owners since 1990. The decision is expected to also help bolster property rights efforts in Congress. The first property rights bill ever voted on by both chambers of Congress was filibustered by the Senate last year. The bill would have provided property owners with taking claims access to federal courts.
___________________________________________________