dividson of ag lands

marc at aculink.net marc at aculink.net
Wed Aug 15 21:39:54 EDT 2001




Marcie Rosenzweig wrote:
> 
> Thanks Folks,
> 
> I'm still collecting answers.   Thanks to those who have responded.
> 
>   Yes, it's a matter of who you know.  I believe if you're not part of
> the solution, you're part of the problem.  There are many ways to be
> part of the solution - actively farming is one.  Hollering when the
> jurisdiction doesn't follow its own laws and regs is another. Trying
> to change the system to make abuses harder is yet another.  It does
> help if you have a wicked sence of humor and a Don Quixotesk bent.
> 
> Marcie
> 
> Marcie A. Rosenzweig
> Full Circle
> 3377 Early Times Ln
> Auburn, CA  95603-7900
> (530) 885-9201

--------------------------
Farm Bureau applauds land rights decision

The American Farm Bureau Federation today hails a Supreme
Court decision
stating that landowners are entitled to seek compensation
when they are
forbidden by government from realizing their property's full
economic
potential. 

"The court's decision is a considerable victory for
landowners and the fight
many have been forced to wage against government attempts to
block landowner
takings claims," said American Farm Bureau Federation
President Bob
Stallman. "The court weakened troublesome obstacles to
landowner takings
claims and expressed dissatisfaction with existing rules
that hinder
'partial takings' claims." 

AFBF and the Rhode Island Farm Bureau filed an amicus brief
supporting
landowner Anthony Palazzolo who was prevented from
developing land by the
state's Coastal Resources Management Council. Palazzolo
bought 18 acres in
1959, with the long-term plan to build 74 homes. In 1978,
Palazzolo changed
title of his land from his single shareholder corporation to
himself
individually. 

Despite several attempts to satisfy the council's rulings,
the state
repeatedly rejected Palazzolo's amended plans for more than
four decades.
When he ultimately sought compensation for his loss, the
state court
rejected his claim, citing the change of title, and claiming
his property
had not lost its entire value. 

"Rejecting this landowner's best efforts to comply with the
coastal
council's changing demands clearly devalued the property,"
said Stallman.
"The council's action effectively limited the use of the
bulk of the land
solely to a public wildlife refuge, without the public
bearing any expense. 

"Farm Bureau was also extremely troubled by the state's
rules changes due to
a 'paper change' in ownership. Such actions occur frequently
when farm
families transfer land ownership to assure that their land
stays in farming
and under their family's control. The Supreme Court rejected
the state
court's ruling that would have deprived heirs and successors
of any right to
file a compensation claim." 

The court remanded the case back to Rhode Island to
determine whether there
was a detrimental economic impact on Palazzolo's investment
potential.

"When government restricts the use of private property to
create a public
benefit, then the landowner should be compensated," Stallman
said.

The court also ruled in Palazzolo's favor merely by
considering the case
because the state claimed he should have pursued other
procedural options
before litigation was necessary. According to Stallman, the
council's
constant delaying tactics resulted prevented the property
owner from
achieving his land's full economic potential 

An indexed archive of previous releases are available at
http://www.colofb.com/archive/ Newsline.



More information about the Market-farming mailing list