Hage v. United States
Victory is Sweet!

The first phase of trial in Hage v. United States came to a close October 9, 1998. As you may recall, Hage was the guest speaker at the League's first annual membership meeting in 1996. Because victory will benefit all property owners, the League has contributed toward the legal expenses in this case. Therefore, we are particularly interested in the outcome. Hage filed his action in the United States Claims Court for compensation of property taken by BLM and other related agencies. The property taken included land, cattle, and water rights. The land and water rights had belonged to the Hage family since the mid 1800's.

As we understand it, the government's primary position was that Hage's cattle was not to disturb the zone (wetland) within 50 feet of either side of the ditch. Needless to say, the cattle cannot drink if they must stay 50 feet from the water! In apparent disregard fort the Hage's rights, armed agents barricaded a critical portion of the Hage property and confiscated all cattle within the zone. Now, at long last, justice seems at hand. Following is a condensed outline of the preliminary trial/ruling as recounted by Wayne Hage:

I wish more of you could have sat in the proceedings to watch first hand the government attorney's scramble to defend against the property rights arguments. Over the seven full day's of trial I cannot recall one issue they raised where we did not prevail. The bulk of the government's case was spent upon minor administrative issues. The attempts they made to undermine our historical property rights in the water, forage, and rights of way, were simplistic and shallow. They were unsuccessful both because the property rights are solid, and because the two attorneys handling the case, Ladd Bedford and Mike Van Zandt, are excellent litigators.

As we traveled from end to end of Pine Creek Ranch in a caravan with the Judge and his Clerk last Saturday for the site visit, it was also clear that the rugged, open spaces left an important impression on the Judge. The stories, allegations, history and culture are now in perspective. The contentious points raised by the government were dwarfed by the vast high desert terrain.

By far, the highlight of the trial came with the Judge's closing remarks. Although he will not be issuing his decision until the closing briefs are written and reviewed, he did state that it was evident that plaintiffs clearly had vested rights. To what extent he will determine those rights is still unknown, but I would be surprised if it is much different than the case put forward by the Hage's litigation team. He also indicated he wanted to move forward quickly with the remaining phases of trial, presuming the plaintiffs prevail, and suggested the final two phases, the takings and valuation phase, be combined in a hearing during the summer or fall of 1999. With this timetable, it is reasonable to conclude the Judge is planning to make his decision of the first phase by this spring in order to allow enough time for the parties to prepare for a summer trial.

The Judge closed his remarks noting that the government has a legitimate goal of regulating the use of the land but that individual rights are important and the protection of property rights essential. He spoke in terms of sacred property rights and noted that the government's goals and individual rights are not mutually exclusive of each other.

-Stewards Of The Range

Do Local Growth Controls Work?
Portland Sets A Bad Example, Critics Warn

People move to suburbs because they're "family friendly" and offer larger homes, private yards and better schools. And they're safe.

Suburbs have something else going for them: Suburbs exist because people want them and their wealth permits them to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

But not all agree suburbs are nice: Some go so far as to say they're unnecessary. Many view suburbs as urban sprawl. Because of this image, a number of communities across the nation have embraced growth controls.

The reasons are varied. First, a lot of people have become convinced that open space is disappearing at crisis rates, though that's not true.

Second, very often because it's environmentalists promoting the idea, it has a nice, warm feeling to it.

Third, growth controls are popular because you're voting to impose costs on other people.

In Portland, the politics of containing growth got off to a smooth start. The city had land and time to spare when it imposed it's boundary. About 35% of the land within the boundary was vacant when the boundary was imposed.

Officials expected it would take 20 years or longer to develop the zone. An extended recession causing stagnant home prices and population also helped form the impression growth control was working.

But now home and land prices have doubled. Once one of the lowest-cost places for housing on the West Coast, Portland now is one of the highest-priced small metropolitan areas in the country.

Last October, the Portland area's Metro Council acknowledged the region was bursting at the seams, and pushed the urban-growth boundary out 4,500 acres.

In a region where environmentalism is a civic religion, it shouldn't be surprising growth controls are popular. What's not being fully appreciated are the costs of keeping the faith.

First, Portland's high-income households are displacing lower-income ones. Portland's inner-city neighborhoods had the greatest rate of home-price appreciation in the city's metro area from 1990 to 1997.

Second, there are heretics. They're simply not putting up with the high cost of housing within Portland. Instead, they're moving to Washington state.

And it's not just potential residents Portland stands to lose, critics of the city's urban-growth boundary say. Large local businesses are concerned with the obvious result of limiting the supply of land for residential development.

Recent decisions by Nike and high-tech firms in the region are considering expansion in other cities where lower priced housing and development costs are important. This suggests the investment in the Portland region may be slowing down.

-Taken from an article by:
Jim Christie of Investor's Business Daily

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. Down-zoning property to preclude development inequitably destroys property values and is therefore a "taking".

Can Private Property Rights Protect the Environment?

When government calls the environmental shots, bureaucrats focus their energies on carrying out the mandates of politicians-who are usually quite happy to take credit for a warm and fuzzy "pro-environment" bill enacted into law just prior to an election. Bureaucrats are rarely held accountable for the decisions they make. They don't reap financial benefits from making good decisions, and they don't pay the costs of bad decisions. For them, there are no rewards, no punishments, no incentives.

The well-documented ecological problems afflicting U.S. national parks and other federal lands provide an example of environmental mismanagement by government agencies. In Yellowstone National Park, for example, flora and fauna alike have undergone a frightening deterioration in recent years resulting from poor wildlife management practices on the part of the National Park Service. The bureaucrats overseeing their respective realms have had no stake in the outcome of their decision. Incentives for good stewardship are lacking.

If farmers, ranchers, and fishermen don't practice good stewardship, they go out of business. By contrast, poor stewardship on the part of officials in Washington carries no penalties and can even lead to promotions and bigger budgets.

Because they get the incentives right, free markets and private property rights are a far more sound approach to environmental protection than the command-and-control approach of even the most well-intended politicians and bureaucrats.
-Taken from:
Environmental News, June 1998

Soccer Fields & Park on Prehistoric Site

It was recently reported that there may be a problem with Phase II of Boone County's future sit of a proposed 41 acre park and soccer fields off Route 8 because of a prehistoric village and burial grounds. The two acres being considered for development were divided into two phases.

Phase 1 of the plan was approved by the Boone County Planning Commission, but because some prehistoric artifacts had been found on the land considered to be Phase II, the eastern portion of the development was given a restriction. If work was to begin in that area, an agreement would first have to be reached concerning the land's archeological resources by the Historic Preservation Review Board, the developer and the Kentucky Heritage Council.

Susan Cabot, Historic Preservation Planner for Boone County's Planning Commission appeared at a Boone County fiscal meeting to make sure that the fiscal court was aware of the land's potential archeological significance.

The obvious (and often unmentioned) question is, "Who or what determines a prehistoric site?" Does the discovery of some arrowheads class property as prehistoric? If so, all of northern Kentucky should perhaps be a museum. Moreover, if this proposed park is indeed a prehistoric site, wouldn't such a park be the best place to properly display such artifacts?