Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights

[fintstone]

Bush gets it right! He signs an Executive Order protecting the property rights of the American people from confiscation by the Federal govt for anything other than traditional public use. Now the states need to do the same.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060623-10.html

[Joeaksa]

Please do not post anything like this in the future! It really undermines a lot of the liberals platform!

Now slopat might even have to agree with somethat the both the govt and Pres Bush has done. Techweiner will have nothing to complain about all day long and Kang is just plain confused!

[fastpat]

Never accept anything done by government without a thorough examination of it's affects, if any.

Let's look at the exclusions first.

Sec. 3. Specific Exclusions. Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit a taking of private property by the Federal Government, that otherwise complies with applicable law, for the purpose of:

(a) public ownership or exclusive use of the property by the public, such as for a public medical facility, roadway, park, forest, governmental office building, or military reservation;

Under the Constitution the federal government may acquire property, that is title to property, "to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings". Looks like the authority has been stretched a might, but not just by this president.

(b) projects designated for public, common carrier, public transportation, or public utility use, including those for which a fee is assessed, that serve the general public and are subject to regulation by a governmental entity;

No authority to do this in the Constitution.

c) conveying the property to a nongovernmental entity, such as a telecommunications or transportation common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right;

No authority to do this in the Constitution, where does he think he has been granted a power to do this?

(d) preventing or mitigating a harmful use of land that constitutes a threat to public health, safety, or the environment;

An open ended property acquisition statement. Under this any property can be confiscated. No power to do this granted anywhere in the Constitution.

(e) acquiring abandoned property;

The federal government cannot do this without permission of the state within which the property lies, and then must show a need to acquire it to congress.

(f) quieting title to real property;

I don't know this term, perhaps other do.

(g) acquiring ownership or use by a public utility;

No, sorry, no power granted to the executive branch to do this.

(h) facilitating the disposal or exchange of Federal property; or

The federal government should be required to sell or return all property not being used for the purpose originally acquired within 1 to 2 years of the cessation of use. There are many square miles of so-called federal lands taken from the states, mostly in the west, that are no longer being used for the purposes originally acquired, but have not been returned to the states in which the property lies.

(i) meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies.

A second escape clause, allowing federal agencies to do what they like as long as they claim to meet the above uses.

When looking at anything that comes out of the federal government remember, the restrictions upon the federal government are always interpreted to mean the least amount of restrictions; and the restrictions on individuals and the states are always interpreted to be the most expansive. That's the way the federal government has operated for well over 100 years, but became near its' current level during the Roosevelt years and never went back.

Bush isn't particularly unusual in the way this is written, but it's not what you folks said it was in your posts. I wish you had been correct.

[Aurel]

That is just another lame attempt to regain popularity amongst the republicans, after the mexican border `tightening`. I think Bush only goal now is to finish is presidency with more than 20% approval, and this is not going to be a cake walk...

Aurel

[fintstone]

On the contrary, this returns the practice of the federal govt. to what has been upheld and practiced prior to the recent Supreme Court ruling allowing the gvt to condemn property for more "beneficial" private use. The same laws should be passed in states and municipalities.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Aurel
That is just another lame attempt to regain popularity amongst the republicans, after the mexican border `tightening`. I think Bush only goal now is to finish is presidency with more than 20% approval, and this is not going to be a cake walk...

Aurel

True, but this is actually a mildly positive step. Thing is, it was made necessary by SCOTUS appointments, 8/9 of which we're still living with. It was pretty much a renegate move by the court, and this reigns it in a bit.

When Bush occasionally does something positive, I'm happy to acknowledge it.

[HardDrive]

As above. I'll give Bush credit when deserved. As long as this is not some 'devil in the details' attempt to get even more power, then he gets a thumbs up from me.

[Moneyguy1]

Such a law should not be necessary in a country that prides itself on individual freedom.

Then agasin, perhaps I am wrong.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Such a law should not be necessary in a country that prides itself on individual freedom.

Then agasin, perhaps I am wrong.

Well, that sounds right on principle. Do you know of such a country?

[john70t]

From quazi-national socialist to conservative republican? Why bother, the public's got a shorter attention span than a chiwawa.
Besides, a Walmart staffed by undocumenteds will realize more local taxes than your little 4000sq. shack (umm, unless of course they've pre-negotiated a seperate differed taxation structure).
You cook it, you eat it. All your base.

BTW pat, I (think) " (f) quieting title to real property" is a "Quiet Title" suit by a party to establish no encumberances (like a lien/back taxes) exist on a title on a piece of "real" estate (versus a theoretical, non-real estate like a piece of paper with bonds printed on it).....not sure of the context.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Such a law should not be necessary in a country that prides itself on individual freedom.

Then again, perhaps I am wrong.

The executive order, while they seem to have the appearance and effect of law these days, is really a directive from the President to all offices of the executive branch on how they will conduct business.

Tech, I'd like to see how this EO has improved anything. I don't see how it can, it has escape clauses that are both massive and subjective.

[dad911]

Originally posted by fastpat
quote: (g) acquiring ownership or use by a public utility;


No, sorry, no power granted to the executive branch to do this.

So you don't believe in easements should be granted/obtained for utilities such as electric, gas, tel, catv? Suprising for a person obviously usining the internet & power....

If you truely practiced what you preached, you wouldn't be online.....

[widebody911]

Originally posted by dad911
So you don't believe in easements should be granted/obtained for utilities such as electric, gas, tel, catv? Suprising for a person obviously usining the internet & power....

a) Sounds like you don't know what an easement is. Hint: it's not not the same as 'aquiring': http://m-w.com/dictionary/easement
2 : an interest in land owned by another that entitles its holder to a specific limited use or enjoyment

b) Since when should granting an easment be an Executive Branch power? If that is indeed the case, then why not dispense with the formalities and get on with the coronation of King George I

[dad911]

Sorry Thom, Land/real estate developer here, I deal with 'easments' all the time. Right of way easements, the property 'owned' by the town/state/government' are 'aquired' all the time, for the "public good". A simple example is when a road is made wider.

I am almost certain the taking of easements has been within the power of local, state, and federal governments for quite some time. I was trying to point out that Fastpat is objecting to exclusions, which are already commonly done/allowed. IMO nothing new here with the exclusions.

I see this executive order of help to certain groups, such as homeowners along the Jersey Shore, where the local governments are condemming large groups of vacation properties and reselling it to developers for redevelopement.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by dad911
So you don't believe in easements should be granted/obtained for utilities such as electric, gas, tel, catv? Suprising for a person obviously usining the internet & power....

If you truely practiced what you preached, you wouldn't be online.....

You're mixing up couty and state powers with federal powers. There is no grant of federal power to do that.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by dad911
Sorry Thom, Land/real estate developer here, I deal with 'easments' all the time. Right of way easements, the property 'owned' by the town/state/government' are 'aquired' all the time, for the "public good". A simple example is when a road is made wider.

If people, through the state, need more land then they need to pay full freight for it instead of "condemnation" fire sale rates. That would do several things, first it would slow these willy-nilly road widenings, and it would cost too much to do many of them so they'd not be done at all.

I am almost certain the taking of easements has been within the power of local, state, and federal governments for quite some time. I was trying to point out that Fastpat is objecting to exclusions, which are already commonly done/allowed. IMO nothing new here with the exclusions.

I see this executive order of help to certain groups, such as homeowners along the Jersey Shore, where the local governments are condemming large groups of vacation properties and reselling it to developers for redevelopement.

Bush's EO doesn't help them at all since it was all within a state/county. The feds weren't involved.

[fastpat]

Here's a story of a group that successfully stopped the theft of their property for "the greater good".

Floridians Stop Government Theft of Their Property
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo at 11:19 AM

The June 22 Palm Beach (Florida) Post had an enlightening article about a group of citizens who successfully fought off the theft of their homes and churches by the crooked political machine that runs the small town of Boynton Beach.

"After a closed-door session to discuss ongoing litigation, city commissioners voted 5-0 late Tuesday to end all eminenent domain proceedings in the northeast development district," the article declared. "That means the city will drop three lawsuits to acquire about 12 properties . . ."

"We are pulling out, Mayor Jerry Taylor said. We just figured it's going to be costly in the long run. Too many people would be willing to fight it."

"This is a great day," said the property owners' attorney, John Little. "This now puts everyone in the position to negotiate in the open market. My clients can voluntarily decide if they want to sell."

That is, the developer that was given a sweetheart deal by the "city fathers" must now offer free-market prices for any property that he wants to develop, instead of having his political pals steal the property by paying arbitrarily low prices for it and kicking the residents out of their homes.

In fine Soviet central planning style, the article also tells of how the attempted theft of the property was part of Boynton Beach's "Five-Year Heart of Boynton Plan."