Feds and County taking land because of snowcat

pfhlaw · Mar 2, 2014

This a link to a story about my friend whose land is being taken from him under false pretenses. The county is taking the land in order to swap it for land the feds have close to town. The county will then sell that land for millions to a private developer. Colorado outlawed this a few years ago which is why the county has to disguise this and blame the snowcat. This is not why we have eminent domain.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3238531824001/atv-jitters-spark-eminent-domain-fight/#sp=show-clips

Northcoast · Mar 2, 2014

I'm sooo sorry for your friends. Maybe we SHOULD listen to those that advocate fearing out government.

300 H and H · Mar 2, 2014

Classic use of Government powers that have really changed durring our current administrations occupation of the White house...

This smells like liberals who know better how you shall live your life, and they will run right over you to get what they want. I am soooo stinkin tired of our Government and it's "powers"... I will jump for joy when the Democrats are no longer in control of ANYTHING.

Regards, Kirk

FrancSevin · Mar 2, 2014

This needs organized local opposition....or....Someday, they will come for your neighbors or....... you.

Our Founders built a nation based on protection of the rights of the individual. A bold new concept. The great experiment as it were.

Lately, that experiment seems to have failed.

First in New London CT and now thanks to that SCOTUS ruling, everywhere in the nation.

XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq · Mar 3, 2014

Follow the money.

JimVT · Mar 3, 2014

and you don't think he didn't know about this prior to buying and building?

FrancSevin · Mar 3, 2014

JimVT said:
and you don't think he didn't know about this prior to buying and building?

Of which "HE" are you speaking. Pronouns are terrible creatures , no?

I see no evidence the cabin owner knew of this. I see, from the video, that they plannned to do nothing to the property but leave it as it has been for over 100 years.
The National Park Service will do more damage with their pickups than the property owner's ATV.

That said,,,,
Your point is irrelavent.

This is not about property owners profiting. It is about an individuals right to own property without fearing confiscation by the State. A central precept of our Nation's founding.

That right to own property will matter to you when? When they come for yours. :hammer:

Knocker of rocks · Mar 3, 2014

300 H and H said:
Classic use of Government powers that have really changed durring our current administrations occupation of the White house...

This smells like liberals who know better how you shall live your life, and they will run right over you to get what they want. I am soooo stinkin tired of our Government and it's "powers"... I will jump for joy when the Democrats are no longer in control of ANYTHING

So the liberals want to trade the land to a developer?

This kind of thing has been going on for a decade or two.

Greed doesn't follow party lines

Knocker of rocks · Mar 3, 2014

FrancSevin said:
I see no evidence the cabin owner knew of this. I see, from the video, that they plannned to do nothing to the property but leave it as it has been for over 100 years.
The National Park Service will do more damage with their pickups than the property owner's ATV

How did the NPS get interjected into this? Nowhere were they ever brought up, and their closest parcel is probably at least 100 miles away.

FrancSevin · Mar 3, 2014

Knocker of rocks said:
So the liberals want to trade the land to a developer?

This kind of thing has been going on for a decade or two.

Greed doesn't follow party lines

Are not the Liberals on the SCOTUS to be held responsible for their landmrk decision in the New London case?
Are you aware of the resonaing which fundimentaly changed the perspective on a citizens right to retain ownership of his propety. The dimished land rights as a result of a decision that gave property belonging to a person, to a developer who promised to make more tax revenue for the city?
Are you aware that the property in New london was cleared of historic homes who's residents could claim family occupancy for generations, now see empty abandoned lots because the developer abandoned the project?

Conservatives fought to keep the land for the individual. It was greedy liberals who re-defined the purpose of "Public Good" before the SCOTUS and literaly stole the Real Estate for the profit of another. They saw the developer's profit as a tax revenue benefit.

Thanks to the SCOTUS's new interpretation of Public Need, we only need the EPA or the Park Service to claim some insignificant "better good" to steal a man's property and give it to another for "profit" :hammer:

JimVT · Mar 3, 2014

pfhlaw care to post more on this? Are you representing them?

300 H and H · Mar 3, 2014

Knocker of rocks said:
So the liberals want to trade the land to a developer?

This kind of thing has been going on for a decade or two.

Greed doesn't follow party lines

Franc hit it on the head here. It was the current Supreme Court that has "loosened" the standards for eminent domain to be applied. So yes I have to lay the blame on those voices on the court, as for 200 years before the rules would not have allowed this to happen. So because of this action of the high court of the land we are here to talk about it. Liberals are to blame for the changes that brought us this situation...This time anyway, your point taken, greed has no party.

Regards, Kirk

Knocker of rocks · Mar 3, 2014

The Supreme Court case in question was decided in 2005, during which the following justices served on SCOTUS (followed by appointing President). Are your hated liberals really to blame for that decision? Or your greedy conservatives always looking for a way to give more money to the corporations or the state?

Roberts - GWB
Rehnquist - Nixon
Scallia - RR
Kennedy - RR
Thomas - GHWB
Ginsburg - Clinton
Breyer - Clinton
Stevens - Ford
O'Connor - RR
Souter - GHWB

pfhlaw · Mar 3, 2014

Jim, This all started when feds knocked on door of lower cabin and said he and his wife could no longer use any motorized vehicles on the "federal road" even though upper cabin (and old mine claims) on his upper 10 acres are only accessible by this road.
BTW, this "road" starts on his driveway where an easement was granted to the feds to access 2.1 million acres of national forest.

Turns out the "road" is not federal property, but an old county road so the feds have no authority to restrict his use. The "road" crosses his upper 10 acres 3 times but the feds failed to obtain easements up there.

So Andy, being a nice guy, offered to give the feds their easements in exchange for a permanent easement for him to continue to use his snowcat on the road to access his 10 acres and his cabin. The fed's response was to stab him in the back.

The feds quietly struck a deal with the county to use the county's eminent domain powers to take his 10 acres. But first, the county inspects the upper cabin in order to find reasons to condemn it. That way they can offer him next to nothing for the property. The feds have property closer to Breckenridge that they will then swap with the county for Andy's property.

Colorado law also requires open public meetings (with sufficient public notice) to transact this type of business. Summit county ignored the law and cut back room deals without any public forum or hearings.

The court proceedings are scheduled for late April. I will be there and let you know what happens.

P. S. Andy has been my best friend for the last 40 years. I was his best man. He was my best man. I am his daughter's godfather and he is my daughter's godfather. I represent him in Illinois. His business makes Christmas wreaths which are sold by boyscout troops, schools and church groups for fundraising. He has excellent local counsel in Colorado but Andy's legal fees incured so far are more than the county is offering to take his 10 acres.

Even if he wins, it will cost him thousands upon thousands of dollars.

The county and feds get to spend an unlimited amount of our tax dollars to steal his property.

FrancSevin · Mar 3, 2014

Knocker of rocks said:
The Supreme Court case in question was decided in 2005, during which the following justices served on SCOTUS (followed by appointing President). Are your hated liberals really to blame for that decision? Or your greedy conservatives always looking for a way to give more money to the corporations or the state?

Roberts - GWB
Rehnquist - Nixon
Scallia - RR
Kennedy - RR
Thomas - GHWB
Ginsburg - Clinton
Breyer - Clinton
Stevens - Ford
O'Connor - RR
Souter - GHWB

Finding blame, or disagreement, is not hatred. And use of that word here has no place. Please do not apply YOUR value system to others.

The SCOTUS has gone a bit left, despite being apponted by both left and right Presidents. It is more liberal than ever. As the last bastion of the Constitution, which it's members swear to uphold in it's interpretations, it should be counted on to remain conservative.

In other words, not legislating from the bench. And certainly not changing the meaning of the original text and intent of the Document by which our nation's citizens are in Convenant to protect. And paramount, first, would be the rights of the individual, not the benefits of the State. Individual rights suffer from progressivism, be that GOP or Democrat. Both Teddy Roosevelt and Woodroow Wilson were Progressives.

The Fourth amendment, much like the second, has been eroded over time. By both parties. The SCOTUS was put in place to stop that. That annoying separation and balance of power thingy.

Perhaps one should do some research and see what has been wrought by recent SCOTUS moves to the left.

Supreme Court Determines What is "a Public Use"

Homes in a New London, Conn. neighborhood that stand to be torn down
after the city won its case before the U. S. Supreme Court

In June 2005, the Supreme Court decided an important case involving the meaning of "public use" in the Fifth Amendment. In Kelo v City of New London, the Court, voting 5 to 4, upheld a city plan to condemn homes in a 90-acre blue-collar residential neighborhood. New London plans to give the land to a developer for $1, with a 99-year lease, to build a waterfront hotel, office space, and higher-end housing. Justice Stevens, writing for the Court, found this donation of property to a developer to be a "public use." Stevens said that the Court's jurisprudence gave government "broad latitude" to determine what uses might be "public." In a concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy indicated that the Court still stood willing to review on constitutional grounds takings that are arguably simply the city favoring one private owner over another, rather than takings based on a good faith analysis of the public interest. Angry property rights advocates reacted to the decision by suggesting that local governments consider condemning the homes of justices in the majority and turning them over to private developers for construction of B & Bs.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/takings.htm

Knocker of rocks · Mar 3, 2014

FrancSevin said:
Finding blame is not hatred. Plaese do nt apply YOUR value system to others.

You're doing the same thing, applying your value system of "liberal" to a largely Republican appointed SCOTUS so you can blame a party or group you love to demonize.

FrancSevin · Mar 3, 2014

Knocker of rocks said:
You're doing the same thing, applying your value system of "liberal" to a largely Republican appointed SCOTUS so you can blame a party or group you love to demonize.

Other than a constant habit of mondegreen,,,,I have no problem with liberals. But here you fail to connect the dots. My refernce was to the word HATE. Look it up.

As I said, Progressivism is not limited to the Democratic party. As the appointment of Chief Justice John Roberts has proven,,,,,it is irrelavant by whom the justices were appointed.

What is relavent, would be the interpretations said justices make. And it is by those decisions, not their party affiliations, that American citizens should judge the court's actions.

Or are you so stuck in you mantra, that only party polarity matters?

pfhlaw · Mar 3, 2014

Folowing the Kelo decision in 2005, GW Bush signed an Executive Order preventing all federal government agencies from using eminent domain for purely economic development. The taking must benefit the public. In Andy's case, I think the feds knew they couldn't use eminent domain because they are seeking to prevent the public from using the road. The county is under no such restriction from the executive order, but they are prevented by Colorado law from taking non-blighted property for economic development so they had to create a specious argument to justify taking Andy's property and then trade it for the land they want to develop. The specious argument is that the snowcat or snowmobile threaten the habitat of wildlife. Mind you, the feds and county have not curtailed their use of motorized vehicles on the road and they drive right up Andy's driveway while doing it.

FrancSevin · Mar 3, 2014

pfhlaw said:
Folowing the Kelo decision in 2005, GW Bush signed an Executive Order preventing all federal government agencies from using eminent domain for purely economic development. The taking must benefit the public. In Andy's case, I think the feds knew they couldn't use eminent domain because they are seeking to prevent the public from using the road. The county is under no such restriction from the executive order, but they are prevented by Colorado law from taking non-blighted property for economic development so they had to create a specious argument to justify taking Andy's property and then trade it for the land they want to develop. The specious argument is that the snowcat or snowmobile threaten the habitat of wildlife. Mind you, the feds and county have not curtailed their use of motorized vehicles on the road and they drive right up Andy's driveway while doing it.

Having represented my subdivision in numerous such actions by county, cuitry and state agencies for over 15 years, I am well aware of the legal tricks used to force the will ofthe Council, or agency, upon the rights of a single property owner.

In each case, the Property owner had the economic deck stacked against them. That is why the SCOTUS shift; ie; Kelo VRS City of New London, is so aggregious to the rights of an individual. For most of the citizenry, the argumet is acedemic.

Until they come for your property.

mtntopper · Mar 3, 2014

The Forest Service (federal government) since about 1970 has required "in holders" of private property that must access their property through a federal government easement to have that easement in writing and renewed as required. I owned a piece of property that was accessible only via a Forest Service road. I was informed by the Forest Service district ranger to protect my right to use the access road I must apply for a use permit to access my property and each subsequent owner of any property surrounded by federal land and accessed via a federal road must reapply to maintain access. This was about 10 years ago. I sold this property and kept my mountain property which borders Forest Service that I access via a private road. The Forest Service would like very much for this section of private land where I am located now to not exist or be part of the National Forest Service but with private road access that makes it much more difficult for them to just take from the private property owners in this section. :ermm:

Only recently has this required "federal road easement access permit requirements" came to light as it was seldom enforced in the past. But with today's policies of elimination of " in holders" of private property that is surrounded by Forest Service or federal land more emphasis is being placed on elimination of the private properties that are surrounded by Forest Service or federal land. I think this is being driven by the environmentalist who want the government to own or control most properties such as mine so they can use it for the public purposes.

Back about 1958 prior to any wilderness designation in our local National Forest my family had a Forest Service property lease property with a cabin and a mining claim attached that was being included in the purposed wilderness area. After the designation of it being a primitive area turned it into a wilderness area the Forest Service refused to renew our lease and destroyed the cabin so it met the criteria of "Wilderness Area" that is now part of our local national forest. Many lease holders were ousted in the early 1960's to make a "Wilderness Area" where it did not really exist. The eastern USA controls the destiny of the west as we just do not have the population to overcome the total lack of knowledge that the government control of the eastern USA uses to make policy for those of us that live in the western US.

Government polices similar to the eminent domain one in Colorado have been enforced for many years. Basically the eminent domain laws can be used at the discretion of those that see fit to apply it for any reason they see precive to benefit the public. Law suits fighting government entities are very expensive to fight and only those with unlimited resources are able to fight back so that eliminates 99% of the people's ability to ever be able to counter an eminent domain law. :sad:

pfhlaw · Mar 3, 2014

I practice law in Crook County, Illinois. Our politicians may not have invented corruption, but they certainly perfected it. When yet another of his trusted aldermen was convicted of corruption, our former mayor famously said "You never take cash". The currency of successful corruption is favors. "Hey! Pass my ordinance and my brother will hire your son for a no-show job at the city department he controls." It's just as illegal and just as corrupt. It's just not as easy to convict.

At our state capitol, it's done on an institutional level. Our speaker of the house controls all legislation. He can prevent any bill from ever reaching the floor. Coincidentally, if you hire his lawfirm to represent you on your property tax appeal, your bill flies through the legislature and becomes law. Don't hold your breath while the state attorney general investigates the obvious conflict of interest and prosecutes him, she's his daughter.

"Hey! Use your power of eminent domain to take this 10 acres we want and then we will swap it for this other land we own so you can develop it and make millions." It's just as illegal and just as corrupt. It's just not as easy to convict.

The fact that the county and feds conspired to conceal this back room deal proves they knew it was wrong if not illegal.

FrancSevin · Mar 3, 2014

mtntopper said:
The Forest Service (federal government) since about 1970 has required "in holders" of private property that must access their property through a federal government easement to have that easement in writing and renewed as required. I owned a piece of property that was accessible only via a Forest Service road. I was informed by the Forest Service district ranger to protect my right to use the access road I must apply for a use permit to access my property and each subsequent owner of any property surrounded by federal land and accessed via a federal road must reapply to maintain access. This was about 10 years ago. I sold this property and kept my mountain property which borders Forest Service that I access via a private road. The Forest Service would like very much for this section of private land where I am located now to not exist or be part of the National Forest Service but with private road access that makes it much more difficult for them to just take from the private property owners in this section.

Only recently has this required "federal road easement access permit requirements" came to light as it was seldom enforced in the past. But with today's policies of elimination of " in holders" of private property that is surrounded by Forest Service or federal land more emphasis is being placed on elimination of the private properties that are surrounded by Forest Service or federal land. I think this is being driven by the environmentalist who want the government to own or control most properties such as mine so they can use it for the public purposes.

Back about 1958 prior to any wilderness designation in our local National Forest my family had a Forest Service property lease property with a cabin and a mining claim attached that was being included in the purposed wilderness area. After the designation of it being a primitive area turned it into a wilderness area the Forest Service refused to renew our lease and destroyed the cabin so it met the criteria of "Wilderness Area" that is now part of our local national forest. Many lease holders were ousted in the early 1960's to make a "Wilderness Area" where it did not really exist. The eastern USA controls the destiny of the west as we just do not have the population to overcome the total lack of knowledge that the government control of the eastern USA uses to make policy for those of us that live in the western US.

Government polices similar to the eminent domain one in Colorado have been enforced for many years. Basically the eminent domain laws can be used at the discretion of those that see fit to apply it for any reason they see precive to benefit the public. Law suits fighting government entities are very expensive to fight and only those with unlimited resources are able to fight back so that eliminates 99% of the people's ability to ever be able to counter an eminent domain law.

I'm trying to understand from your post, if you believe tthat recent emminent domain actions are a good thing or a bad thing.

Despite having "been done" in recent years. many of us citizens are unhappy with the erosion of what was once considered our individual rights. This particularly true when one considers the expansion of positive rights by the same SCOTUS.

While no one here has directly said it, to suggest there has been no real change, in the relationship of property owners to the State, is ludicrous.

Knocker of rocks · Mar 3, 2014

I don't think anyone here supports these over arching takings

jask · Mar 7, 2014

pfhlaw it sounds like you have a well framed argument, if logic were to prevail that would be enough. Have you consider posting something on Change.org? or Facebook? These cockroaches hate the glare of media attention.

pfhlaw · Mar 7, 2014

Andy has been contacted by Colorado representatives (both dems and republican) who have offered to help. But legislative action may come too late. I agree that there needs to be a lot of light shone on these thieves. If they have nothing to hide why are they avoiding public hearings?

undy · Mar 7, 2014

Isn't there some sort of Appeal process geared toward preventing such speedy taking? In Wisconsin, we have the Dept. of Admin., Div. of Hearings and Appeals to review other regulatory agencies actions, and there is a "timeliness" aspect to filing, specifically in order to prevent a non-reversible action from occurring before it can be challenged. (Like if the DNR wants to cut down your 100-yr. old oak tree, you need to move quickly because they can't put it back once it's cut down.)

I know each state seems to be different. But if there is no such process, there ought to be. It works well here.

Pretty fishy story. I used to live in Silverthorne, CO, up in Summit Co. Too many people wanting to live up in the high country, and big money seems to be the winner most every time.

I wish you and Andy luck with your fight. Thanks for letting us know about it.

jask · Mar 7, 2014

pfhlaw said:
Andy has been contacted by Colorado representatives (both dems and republican) who have offered to help. But legislative action may come too late. I agree that there needs to be a lot of light shone on these thieves. If they have nothing to hide why are they avoiding public hearings?

If they are moving too quickly for State reps to be of help wouldn't that help justify an injunction application?

cabinrat · Mar 7, 2014

Are their any petitions that have been created out their that can be signed by anyone in support of this couple to help defend what is theirs?I sure would and many others would to.It seems these days you have to have signatures for a voice to be heard.Just thinkin

pfhlaw · Mar 10, 2014

It should be easy to obtain an injunction because all we are asking the court to do is preserve the status quo until we have exhausted our alternative remedies. There is no urgency in the county's "need" for the property.

Helmsman38 · Apr 28, 2014

pfhlaw said:
Jim, This all started when feds knocked on door of lower cabin and said he and his wife could no longer use any motorized vehicles on the "federal road" even though upper cabin (and old mine claims) on his upper 10 acres are only accessible by this road.
BTW, this "road" starts on his driveway where an easement was granted to the feds to access 2.1 million acres of national forest.

Turns out the "road" is not federal property, but an old county road so the feds have no authority to restrict his use. The "road" crosses his upper 10 acres 3 times but the feds failed to obtain easements up there.

So Andy, being a nice guy, offered to give the feds their easements in exchange for a permanent easement for him to continue to use his snowcat on the road to access his 10 acres and his cabin. The fed's response was to stab him in the back.

The feds quietly struck a deal with the county to use the county's eminent domain powers to take his 10 acres. But first, the county inspects the upper cabin in order to find reasons to condemn it. That way they can offer him next to nothing for the property. The feds have property closer to Breckenridge that they will then swap with the county for Andy's property.

Colorado law also requires open public meetings (with sufficient public notice) to transact this type of business. Summit county ignored the law and cut back room deals without any public forum or hearings.

The court proceedings are scheduled for late April. I will be there and let you know what happens.

P. S. Andy has been my best friend for the last 40 years. I was his best man. He was my best man. I am his daughter's godfather and he is my daughter's godfather. I represent him in Illinois. His business makes Christmas wreaths which are sold by boyscout troops, schools and church groups for fundraising. He has excellent local counsel in Colorado but Andy's legal fees incured so far are more than the county is offering to take his 10 acres.

Even if he wins, it will cost him thousands upon thousands of dollars.

The county and feds get to spend an unlimited amount of our tax dollars to steal his property.

Please keep us all posted

Feds and County taking land because of snowcat

New member

Member

Bronze Member

Proudly Deplorable

Master of Distraction

Bronze Member

Proudly Deplorable

Member

Member

Proudly Deplorable

Bronze Member

Bronze Member

Member

New member

Proudly Deplorable

Member

Proudly Deplorable

New member

Proudly Deplorable

Back On Track

New member

Proudly Deplorable

Member

Member

New member

New member

Member

New member

New member

Member Formerly Known As Kristi KT7