Private Property Rights vs The State

Records 1-20 of 24

page

Votes

Private Property Rights vs The State
Privitize the Muni Liquor Stores

Body: House | Journal Page: 9910 (Click to view vote.)
Scored? Yes | Right Vote: Y
Author: Buesgens
Acting on: SF2808 Date: 04/08/2010
Result: Amendment Defeated 19 - 109

Government has as much business running liquor stores as they have running golf courses. And fitness centers and health care plans and ski complexes and radio stations and banks and mortgage institutions and, well, you get the idea. The Buesgens amendment would get government out of the liquor sales portion of the private sector:

"Municipal liquor stores licensed under Minnesota Statutes 340A.601 shall cease business as of January 1, 2011. Municipalities closing municipal liquor stores in accordance with this section may choose whether to license privately owned liquor stores by ordnance." Baby steps... Vote Green.

Private Property Rights vs The State
Final House Vote, MnDoT, Land to Indian Tribal Governments

Body: House | Journal Page: 9808 (Click to view vote.)
Scored? Yes | Right Vote: N
Author: Koenen
Acting on: HF2956 Date: 04/07/2010
Result: Bill Passed 91 - 37

Only a minor technical change in the bill as it came back from the Senate. Still a bad vote. From First House Passage:

HF 2956 changes the law that permits the Dept. of Transportation to convey land it no longer needs for trunk highway purposes. Current law limits these conveyances to political subdivisions of the state. This bill expands that authority to include conveyances to Indian Tribal governments. Although this change was characterized by Rep. Koenen as a land swap, the bill does not require a swap. In the Senate, Sen. Robling offered an amendment to give the original land owner the right of first refusal, but the amendment was not adopted. It is always a good thing when the Bureaucracy releases its grip on land, but this bill continues to allow MnDot to decide who gets the land without considering the rights of the original land owner. This bill is not friendly to private property rights. Vote Red.

Private Property Rights vs The State
First Senate Vote, Retroactive Snowplowing Assessment on New Home Owners

Body: Senate | Journal Page: 9090 (Click to view vote.)
Scored? Yes | Right Vote: N
Author: Kelash
Acting on: HF2231 Date: 03/29/2010
Result: Bill Passed 47 - 16

HF 2231 allows road crews to plow snow from roads in unfinished subdivisions. Apparently many of the roads in new subdivisions have not been turned over to the cities and therefore are not part of the infrastructure that would normally be plowed. Costs may be passed on to lot owners. The conference report attracted 10 No votes in the House. In the Senate there were questions about the legality of asking homeowners to pay retroactively for snowplowing that occurred before they even owned the property and long after the has snow melted. Shouldn't the developer pay those costs? Vote Red.

Private Property Rights vs The State
Final Senate Vote, MnDoT, Land to Indian Tribal Governments

Body: Senate | Journal Page: 9101 (Click to view vote.)
Scored? Yes | Right Vote: N
Author: Kubly
Acting on: HF2956 Date: 03/29/2010
Result: Bill Passed 47 - 20

Private Property Rights vs The State
Snuck One Past 'Em: Met Council May Not Use Eminent Domain

Body: House | Journal Page: 9594 (Click to view vote.)
Scored? Yes | Right Vote: Y
Author: Buesgens
Acting on: HF3286 Date: 03/25/2010
Result: Amendment Adopted 67 - 66

There's hope. The Buesgens amendment was a temporary toehold in the uphill struggle to restore property rights in Minnesota. (The toehold was only temporary because - surprise surprise - the amendment was trashed before it could reach the Governor's desk.) The amendment added a limitation to the Met Council's otherwise unlimited authority to acquire anything it wants to for any reason. Vote Green.

The underscored language is the Buesgens amendment:

Subd. 7. Property. The council may acquire, own, hold, use, improve, operate, maintain, lease, exchange, transfer, sell, or otherwise dispose of personal or real property, franchises, easements, or property rights or interests of any kind. The council may not use eminent domain to acquire easements, property rights, or real property."

Private Property Rights vs The State
Delete Metro Area Regulatory Exclusion

Body: House | Journal Page: 9583 (Click to view vote.)
Scored? Yes | Right Vote: Y
Author: Dettmer
Acting on: HF2634 Date: 03/25/2010
Result: Amendment Defeated 46 - 86

The Dettmer amendment deletes from the bill the new language that excludes the Metro area from the restrictions on use of the water from the Mt. Simon-Hinckley aquifer. Development in cities outside of the Metro area that use the Mt. Simon-Hinckley aquifer as their only source of water would be negatively impacted by the language. Those cities include New Ulm, Glencoe, Mora and Jackson. Vote Green.

Private Property Rights vs The State
First House VoteMnDoT, Land to Indian Tribal Governments

Body: House | Journal Page: 9591 (Click to view vote.)
Scored? Yes | Right Vote: N
Author: Koenen
Acting on: HF2956 Date: 03/25/2010
Result: Bill Passed 90 - 42

Private Property Rights vs The State
Interest Rates on Eminent Domain Judgements

Body: Senate | Journal Page: 9013 (Click to view vote.)
Scored? Yes | Right Vote: Y
Author: Limmer
Acting on: SF2722 Date: 03/25/2010
Result: Amendment Defeated 21 - 30

The Limmer amendment to SF 2722 would change the interest rate paid by local governments when citizens are awarded a property tax refund or adjustment or when damages are awarded in eminent domain cases. Ten percent is far too high in today's market conditions. Vote Green.

Private Property Rights vs The State
First House Vote, Landlords and Tenants

Body: House | Journal Page: 9580 (Click to view vote.)
Scored? Yes | Right Vote: Y
Author: Mullery
Acting on: HF2668 Date: 03/25/2010
Result: Bill Passed 133 - 0

HF 2668 modifies legal standards for tenants and landlords. The bill includes provisions regarding late fees, leases and rent receipts, screening fees, abandoned property, tenant rights when properties are foreclosed, grounds for eviction and other aspects of tenant and landlord agreements. Rep. Mullery said the bill represents a high level of cooperation between the affected interest groups. No discussion on the House floor. Vote Green.

Private Property Rights vs The State
Social Engineering through Water Use Restrictions

Body: House | Journal Page: 9584 (Click to view vote.)
Scored? Yes | Right Vote: N
Author: Kalin
Acting on: HF2634 Date: 03/25/2010
Result: Bill Passed 83 - 49

As amended, HF 2634 (LINK) is a clumsy attempt to grant special treatment to a favored constituent group. The bill excludes the metro area from restrictions on the use of water from the Mt. Simon-Hinckley aquifer, allows only domestic use of water from the aquifer, but carves out an exception for "a biofuel or agricultural processing facility," as long as the facility "is implementing all water recycling and conservation plans required under the permit." This bill would be vetoed by Governor Pawlenty. Vote Red.

Private Property Rights vs The State
Eminent Domain Laws are for Governments

Body: Senate | Journal Page: 8958 (Click to view vote.)
Scored? Yes | Right Vote: N
Author: Dahle
Acting on: SF2971 Date: 03/24/2010
Result: Amendment Adopted 54 - 10

The Dahle amendment makes it harder for utilities to build new high-voltage transmission lines and natural gas pipelines by imposing eminent domain process requirements on the utilities. Under the amendment, property owners could delay infrastructure upgrades for years and greatly increase the cost of obtaining needed rights of way. Eminent domain laws are meant to govern the way governments, not private utilities, can obtain land. Vote Red.

Private Property Rights vs The State
Using Eminent Domain to Take Private Debt

Body: Senate | Journal Page: 8960 (Click to view vote.)
Scored? Yes | Right Vote: N
Author: Higgins
Acting on: SF1659 Date: 03/24/2010
Result: Bill Failed 32 - 32

SF 1659 would expand the allowable use of eminent domain by giving cities the power to take over property that has been been abandoned for six months or more. Not only is it a bad idea to increase the long list of excuses government has to take private property, but in this case, government would be gobbling up property not because it has some value, but because it has become a financial burden to such a degree that the owners have abandoned it. That's an investment taxpayers should not have to make. Vote Red. More votes to follow on this issue...

Private Property Rights vs The State
High Voltage Transmission Line Corridors

Body: | Journal Page: 9478 (Click to view vote.)
Scored? Yes | Right Vote: N
Author: Bly, D.
Acting on: HF1182 Date: 03/23/2010
Result: Amendment Adopted 57 - 71

The Bly amendment would delete a provision from the bill that would protect private property. Section 3 requires the Public Utilities Commission and utilities to give priority to existing corridors for transmission lines. This, of course, makes perfect sense. Why would you not want the law to direct utilities to do the least amount of damage to the local area whenever possible? But such common-sense provisions are a bother for those who believe government should operate unrestrained of such petty concerns as private property. Especially in a time when local boutique utilities are springing up with windmills and solar panels and Gilligan on his bamboo bicycle and all sorts of wasteful, inefficient power schemes. Of course, most of these "utilities" could probably make due with speaker wire from Radio Shack to transmit their power. They all want to be part of the grid and to heck with property rights. Turns out Section 3 was added in committee by a member of the minority party. In the interests of avoiding a conference committee with the Senate, Rep. Bly wanted to keep the bill identical to the Senate file. He noted that the Section 3 language is alive elsewhere. We'll keep an eye out for amendments to MS 216E.03, subdivision 7. Red button.

Private Property Rights vs The State
First House Vote, Utility use of Eminent Domain

Body: House | Journal Page: 9479 (Click to view vote.)
Scored? No |
Author: Bly, D.
Acting on: HF1182 Date: 03/23/2010
Result: Bill Passed 123 - 5

HF 1182 is being sold as a means of limiting the power of utilities when using eminent domain to route their power lines. The bill apparently puts the same limits on utilities as are currently on state agencies in the eminent domain process. It doesn't stop the process, but proponents hope the changes here will result in higher reimbursements for the use of land. Not scored.

Private Property Rights vs The State
Right of First Refusal

Body: Senate | Journal Page: 8926 (Click to view vote.)
Scored? Yes | Right Vote: Y
Author: Robling
Acting on: SF2563 Date: 03/23/2010
Result: Amendment Defeated 20 - 44

The Robling amendment provides that before any land no longer needed for highways is given to a tribal government, right of first refusal must be granted to the person from whom the land was first acquired, as per MS 117.226. Vote Green.

Private Property Rights vs The State
Final Senate Vote, MnDoT Land Conveyance to Tribal Governments

Body: Senate | Journal Page: 8927 (Click to view vote.)
Scored? Yes | Right Vote: N
Author: Kubly
Acting on: SF2563 Date: 03/23/2010
Result: Bill Passed 46 - 18

SF 2563 changes the law that permits the Dept. of Transportation to convey land it no longer needs for trunk highway purposes. Current law limits these conveyances to political subdivisions of the state. SF 2563 expands that authority to include conveyances to Indian Tribal governments. Without the Robling amendment to give the original owner the right of first refusal, this bill is not friendly to private property rights. Vote Red.

Private Property Rights vs The State
When is an Assessor an Expert Appraiser?

Body: Senate | Journal Page: 8928 (Click to view vote.)
Scored? Yes | Right Vote: N
Author: Fobbe
Acting on: SF2885 Date: 03/23/2010
Result: Bill Passed 35 - 24

SF 2885 was characterized by Sen. Lisa Fobbe as a "clarification" of legislative intent regarding the duties of county assessors. It would end an "unfunded mandate" on our counties. Not a word of controversy. Just good government. And now let's hear the rest of the story. Enter Sen. Julianne Ortman. Sen. Ortman challenged the Fobbe bill, stating that it basically elevates assessors to the level of expert appraisers when the issue of tax assessments are challenged in tax court. Any citizen who challenges the level of taxation on their property must hire both a lawyer and an appraiser to challenge the county assessment, which is assumed, under current law, to be accurate. The Fobbe bill allows the county assessor, who is not trained as an appraiser, to challenge the appraiser hired by the private citizen. According to Sen. Ortman, the tax court has twice thrown out assessor's testimony and the very issue being "resolved" in the Fobbe bill is currently before the Minnesota Supreme Court. Passing a new law to negate an issue before the court is legislative activism that undermines the legal process. And it just ain't fair. Vote Red.

Private Property Rights vs The State
Sell Spirit Mountain and Focus on the Main Issue

Body: House | Journal Page: 9485 (Click to view vote.)
Scored? No |
Author: Buesgens
Acting on: HF2786 Date: 03/23/2010
Result: Defeated on Voice Vote 0 - 0

No roll call here, but you should know about an amendment offered by Rep. Buesgens to kick the go'ment off of Spirit Mountain and out of competition with business by requiring Duluth and the Spirit Mountain Recreation Area Authority to sell this albatross hanging from the necks of the taxpayers. Government should not be running ski resorts, golf courses, liquor stores, convention centers, trails... Seeing only 13 of the required 15 raised hands needed for a roll call vote, the amendment was defeated on a voice vote. Not scored.

Private Property Rights vs The State
Another Sportingperson Landgrab

Body: House | Journal Page: 8903 (Click to view vote.)
Scored? No |
Author: Hoppe
Acting on: HF2624 Date: 03/15/2010
Result: Amendment Defeated 51 - 80

Remember hunters? Those guys were great. In Minnesota they had 55 million acres to hunt and fish on and only a tiny portion of those 55 million acres were developed. The same vast hunting grounds exist today, but these days hunters are seen as a kind of victims group. And like all victims they have their devoted advocates in government. The Hoppe amendment would shift $1.8 million from protection of Rare Granite Rock Outcrop Ecosystem to permanent easements to "protect the migratory bird corridor" at Camp Ripley. It's not about acquiring land, Rep. Hoppe tells us, it's about easements. While easements aren't technically the same thing as government taking the land outright, they are morphing into a form of soft takings. In Conservation Easements: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Dana Joel Gattuso (link) writes: "Given the rapid growth in land trusts and the rising use of conservation easements over the past decade, along with increasing involvement with government in the arrangements, easements could become a far-reaching means for public land acquisition. That is, easements, absent reforms, could evolve into the prevailing method for government to shift lands unobtrusively from private to public control under a pretense of private stewardship." Since this is shifting money from one dubious purpose to another, this vote is reluctantly not scored.

Private Property Rights vs The State
Junk Science or More Land for Government

Body: House | Journal Page: 8904 (Click to view vote.)
Scored? No |
Author: McNamara
Acting on: HF2624 Date: 03/15/2010
Result: Amendment Defeated 48 - 82

The ink on the Governor's line item veto was still wet when the Sportingpersons marched right back to the trough. The McNamara amendment is basically a delete-all amendment to the Omnibus Woodland Critters Bill. The amendment takes the $26 million spent by the bill and uses it for permanent easements under the RIM program. This $26 million is roughly what was vetoed by Gov. Pawlenty that same morning. Apparently the money would be matched by the Feds, resulting in even more land being placed under permanent use restrictions. The good news, we're told, it that the "owners" would still get to pay taxes on the land! And this is a good deal? For whom? Not scored, since both votes are the wrong vote.

Private Property Rights vs the State