Also check out the article below this one captioned….. Eminent domain divides an historic farm
Keystone and Kelo
« The Reality-Based Community
by Mark Kleiman May 14, 2012
I’m agnostic as to the merits of building the Keystone
Pipeline, designed to take oil derived – with enormous environmental damage –
from Canadian tar sands to Houston.
It would be far better to leave the bitumen in the ground, but not building the
pipeline arguably wouldn’t prevent the stuff from being mined: it might just
guarantee that the product got shipped west to Vancouver
and thence to China.
Right now the pipeline is being held up by environmental
objections and the Obama Administration. But building
it is an article of faith on the right.
The New York Times points out, in tones of shocked horror,
the obvious: Keystone cannot be built without seizing right-of-way
by eminent domain. Otherwise every property owner along the course of the pipe
could hold out for top dollar, and the thing would be utterly uneconomic.
That’s not to deny that the pipeline operator may well be abusing the
eminent-domain process, or the threat of it, to offer less-than-fair
compensation to the landowners.
Of course this runs into another article of the right-wing
faith: that using eminent domain to seize property for private, as opposed to
public, use – for economic-development projects, for example – is one short
step away from the Gulag. Recall that some
of the nuttier wingnuts wanted to seize Justice Souter’s home to punish him for his opinion in
the Kelo case. I’d been wondering whether any of the
anti-Kelo fanatics would let the eminent domain
principle interfere with their support for Keystone.
Volokh Conspirators Jonathan Adler and Ilya Somin note, triumphantly, that some
environmentalists have begun to appreciate that eminent domain can be used for
environmentally destructive purposes. But they don’t seem interested in the
fact that none of their friends on the side of inalienable property rights
seems to have any problem with the use of eminent domain to build Keystone (any
more than they objected to George W. Bush’s use of it to enrich himself and his
business partners in the Texas Rangers by seizing private property to build,
not merely a stadium, but a shopping mall).
It’s perfectly consistent to think that eminent-domain
powers can be used to complete projects better left unstarted,
and also to think that bad projects ought to be blocked on their merits. It’s
not quite so consistent to back property rights except when the big energy
companies want to confiscate them.
http://www.samefacts.com/2012/05/watching-conservatives/keystone-and-kelo/
******************************
Eminent domain divides an historic
farm
Stewart
and Carol Calkins are striving to save the farm that has been in the Calkins
family for more than 150 years. The historic house on their farm dates back to
the mid 1800s and much of the original woodwork and décor has been preserved
By Gloria Hafemeister May 3, 2012
PALMYRA When Carol and Stewart Calkins first heard that the
village of Palmyra planned to annex a portion of their farm to the village,
they brushed off the notion. The village wanted to make the Calkin
land a part of the village industrial park for expansion of the Standard
Process business. The Calkins had no plans to sell the farm that had been in
their family for more than 150 years and figured the village expansion could go
elsewhere. Then they found out just how serious the village was about their
proposal. They received annexation papers and learned that they didn’t have a choice.
Villages and cities have authority to control what happens on land bordering
the community in order to carry out the growth plans. What happened to this
family is happening in many areas of the country because villages and cities
have extraterritorial rights. Some communities around the U.S. have been taken to court over
the issue and in some cases the private land owners have won, but the Calkins
don’t believe they stand a chance.
According to current laws regarding eminent domain, a state,
city or village can seize private property, generally for public uses such as
public facilities, utilities, highways or railroads. Traditionally, the power
of eminent domain has been exercised for the construction of large public
projects, but its use is beginning to be broadened to projects involving not
“public use” but “public benefit.”
Fifth district U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner has introduced a
bill H.R. 1433 – the Private Property Rights Protection Act – currently in
committee in the U.S.
Senate.
Even if this bill eventually makes its way through Congress
and passes, it might not help people in the situation that the Calkins find themselves. According to Joe DeYoung
of MSA Professional Services, who worked on the plan for the village of Palmyra,
eminent domain was not a factor in this case. He declined to comment on the
plan due to pending legal litigation.
In the Calkins’ case, the request for annexation came from
the private company, Standard Process, which is currently located in the
village industrial park and employs about 300 people. The public benefit to the
village of Palmyra is to allow the company to
expand its operation and build a connecting road between the manufacturing
plant and the farm where the raw materials for the health and vitamin products
are grown.
Standard Process bought a parcel of land in the township
that was not adjacent to the village. They petitioned to get that parcel
annexed and the village accepted their proposal, but had to annex more land so
that the 40 acre parcel was connected to the village. They came up with 30
acres from the Calkins, six or seven acres owned by the Town of Palmyra, and a little from
another farm owner. That resulted in Standard Process owning more than half of
the land and, therefore, could petition to get it all annexed, whether or not
landowners agreed. Some other communities have also used the annexation statute
of Direct Annexation, in which one-half of the land owners agree, to force
others to annex their land.
Standard process is a very successful company which makes
whole food supplement products sold through chiropractors and veterinarians.
The Callkins say the organic farm operated by
Standard Process just down the road from them has been a good neighbor and they
do not have a problem with the company. They just believe it is not necessary
to take good farm land and put it into an industrial park. They believe the
current road would serve the company well, as it has in the past, to transport
processed crops to the manufacturing plant.
Stealing from the township?
Steward Calkins, who has been the chairman of the township of Palmyra for 40 years, is also concerned
about the town losing its tax base in order to increase the tax base of the
village. His wife states, “This land grab is being sold to the public as a way
to keep the village strong, increase its tax base and attract jobs.” She said
it may sound politically correct but, in her eyes, it’s stealing. “What about
the township tax base?” she said. “We do not want to sell our farm or pay taxes
to the village. Surely we have some rights.” “To add insult to injury, the
village sent us two quarterly storm water bills for a total of $60.38 – or
$241.52 a year,” she added. “What benefit is our farm getting from the village
storm water system? Our sandy loam farm land has never needed storm water
relief.” Palmyra Village Clerk Laurie Mueller says the
storm water assessment charge is done according to a current village ordinance
requiring that all land owners be charged this fee. She said, in light of the
Calkins’ objection to the assessment, the village engineers are looking into
whether it should be charged on farm land.
According to Mueller, the annexing of the Calkins land was
the result of a request by Standard Process because the company had purchased
another parcel of land that they then annexed to the village. The annexation of
the Calkins land is to connect that parcel to the village. Without the Calkins’
property, the other land would be an island, not connected to the village and,
therefore, could not be annexed.
Jefferson County is leading the state in farmland preservation
efforts and has a purchase of development rights conservation easement program
in place. In February the Jefferson
County Board updated its
farmland preservation plan to align it with the state’s Working
Lands law. The county, however, has also determined it will not
interfere with urban growth, so it did not get involved with the Palmyra annexation issue.
According to Margaret Burlingham, who has worked with
farmland preservation issues in Jefferson County, if a town is concerned about
the extraterritorial rights of villages and cities and how that will affect
town planning and tax base in the future, town officials should work with
neighboring village or city officials to work out an agreement for future
planning. She said the township and city of Lake Mills has done that. She also said the
Wisconsin Towns Association has been monitoring the situation closely as well,
since the issue of annexation and using powers of eminent domain is coming up
in many parts of the state.
HISTORICAL FARM
Meanwhile, the Calkins are working
with their attorneys to try to resolve the situation. Stewart Calkins has lived
on the farm all his life. The farm has been in his family for 160 years. Carol
also comes from a sesquicentennial farm family who settled in nearby Waukesha County 160 years ago. Stewart’s family
came from New York
State as pioneers in the
early 1840s. “We do not want to sell it for any price,” he said. “Our people were
honest, hard working farmers and community leaders. We love the land, the
wildlife, birds, wildflowers and asparagus that are in the fence rows. Since we
retired, we rent our land to a neighbor who also takes pride in good land
stewardship.”
The Calkins have granted an
easement to the local Palmyra
airport on one portion of their farm. They were paid $1,000 for that easement
and they say that did not affect any farming activity. It was simply to make it
possible for the airport, owned by the township, to satisfy the federal rules
governing airports. Their farm includes 195 acres, plus another 40 acres of
land-locked woodland two miles away from the home farm. Both Steward and Carol
graduated from Palmyra
High School and went on
to college. In 1953 Stewart took over the family farm after his dad died. They
married in 1955 and had three children. Carol’s great-great grandfather Eli
Pierce is one of the few Revolutionary War patriots buried in Oak Grove Cemetery at Whitewater. She also has a
great-grandfather who served in the Civil War. Stewart’s father was an airplane
mechanic in France
during World War I. One of their sons-in-law is a decorated Command Sergeant
Major in the Army National Guard. He recently returned from his fourth tour of
duty in Afghanistan
and he and his family live on Carol’s family homestead. The Stewards are
thankful that law does prohibit the village from taking the home they live in.
Their unique, historic house was built in the mid 1800s and has been preserved,
including the unusual curved woodwork, windows, pocket doors, parlor fireplace
and staircase with hand-made railing leading to the living quarters upstairs.
Even the wall paper and light fixtures are original. Some family heirlooms
adorn the home and the walls are lined of photos of family members, including
Stewart’s great-grandparents wedding that took place in the parlor of the home.
Carol would like to get the home listed on the National
Historic place list, but as yet she has not completed the necessary paper work
and documentation to do so. Still, they enjoy the memories and would like to
continue to follow the advice they received from both of their parents: “Hang
on to the land. It will always be your best investment.”
http://www.wisfarmer.com/leadstories/150017865.html