North Dakota Land Owners Won’t Be Allowed To Opt Out Of National Heritage Areas Land Grab

Proof • June 10, 2009

For those of you keeping track of the National Heritage Areas land grab story here in North Dakota (previous posts here, here and here) there’s a disturbing development. According to the North Dakota Farm Bureau, the original legislation allowing these NHA’s to be created contained the following language allowing land owners to opt out:

Landowner withdrawal – Private property included within the boundary of the Heritage Area shall immediately be withdrawn from the Heritage Area if the owner of the property submits a written request to the management entity.

That language makes this land grab a lot more tolerable. If land owners can opt out, no big deal right? Well, the final version of this bill that passed Congress as a part of the 2009 Omnibus Land Management Act and was signed into law recently by President Obama didn’t contain this language.
Meaning that land owners can’t opt out of the National Heritage Area designation just plopped down (without most of the land owners knowing about it) on over 500,000 acres of land in North Dakota.
Compounding that problem is the fact that the version of the National Heritage Areas legislation posted on Northern Plains Heritage Foundation website (that’s the group that has been given regulatory control over these lands) is the old version that does contain the language allowing land owners to opt out. Meaning that anyone going to the NPHF website is going to be mislead about the nature of this land grab.
So a) land owners are stuck now and b) the NPHF isn’t being honest with the public about the details of this bill.

Tags: Domestic Issues, National Heritage Area, North Dakota News, Politics

http://Array Carol

I have a big problem with the condemnation process. It is wrong wrong wrong. I worked for a municipality that went through a condemnation process. It stinks. It’s not fair. If a person rightfully owns a piece of property and the government decides it wants that for some reason…. the government should figure out something else.
JimH

I don’t have a problem with the government taking land for reasonable historical/tourism projects, but that should happen through the condemnation process. There should be hearings. The land owner should be given a certain level of due process. Fair market value should be given for the land.

Why don’t you just say,”I don’t own any land so this isn’t gonna hurt me”.

Piss on history,I’m worried about the future.
robert108

And you get to decide which citizens are and are not moral, right robert108?

More lying smear from you, Rob; you’re getting desperate now. Moral citizens are those who choose to be. You lie when you say that I “decide” anything, Rob. That’s a reach, even for you. I believe in the individual right to have high moral standards. It’s an individual choice, Rob. Are you anti-freedom?
robert108

I’m surprised you’re standing up for individual rights for once, r108.

I always do, Rob, just like you always resort to lying smear with me.
I support the rights of moral citizens to defend themselves and their children from harmful drugs that have no value; I support the rights of individual non-smokers to defend themselves from the damage of smoking. I support the rights of individual normal Americans to defend themselves from the efforts of homo activists to hijack marriage for their own selfish purposes.

Why don’t you, Rob?
http://www.sayanythingblog.com/ electnixon

So heritage = taking away your family’s heritage by depriving you of land that may have been in your family for generations.

Sounds a lot like the inheritance tax.
Kidtransport

Gotta agree with you badlands. This would be a much more interesting site and take a lot less time to read if the personal sniping and profanity and character assination were left out. Is the ski area at Mandan included in this?
Huff Hills or whatever it is called?
badlands4

Just once, I would like to read a post that does not just disintegrate into schoolyard back and fourths, but to the topic at hand.

Man, this disturbs me! It is just wrong, just plain wrong.

I live on Sakakawea. I figure that one day they will take my house too. If it isn’t for a dig, then it will be for tourism or whatever….sigh
robert108

I don’t have a problem with the government taking land for reasonable historical/tourism projects…

I do; IMO, it should originate with the locals.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

I don’t have a problem with the government taking land for reasonable historical/tourism projects, but that should happen through the condemnation process. There should be hearings. The land owner should be given a certain level of due process. Fair market value should be given for the land.

Having land owners just wake up one day to discover that their land is now part of some federal management area isn’t fair.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Unless the government can demonstrate some overhwhelming public need for the land (something better than tourism or economic development or something) the final decision should ultimately lay with the land owner.

I’m surprised you’re standing up for individual rights for once, r108.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

I support the rights of moral citizens to defend themselves and their children from harmful drugs that have no value;

And you get to decide which citizens are and are not moral, right robert108? Because we all have the right to live as you think we should.

Clown.

Why don’t you just say,”I don’t own any land so this isn’t gonna hurt me”.

Hey Jim? I do own land, actually, and I’m the one raising a big stink about this land grab.

The constitution gives government the power of condemnation. I’m just saying that it should be exercised in the manner required by the constitution, not the way Potter is doing it.

SayAnythingBlog.com

North Dakota Land Owners Won’t Be Allowed To Opt Out Of National Heritage Areas Land Grab

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments