 |
The bill is a threat to private landowners.
YOUNG-MURKOWSKI: "FACT"
The bill only provides money for willing sellers -- persons who may have been willing for years to be made whole by the Federal government. It does not authorize any condemnation authority.
ALRA: THE REAL STORY
The fund restriction on land condemnation for FEDERAL purposes is a deceptively alluring "protection." Myron Ebell, policy director of Frontiers of Freedom says "THE BILL PROHIBITS CONDEMNATION, BUT THIS PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS IS LARGELY COSMETIC. FEDERAL LAND AGENCIES HAVE PERFECTED METHODS FOR USING FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND LAND MANAGEMENT LAWS TO COERCE PRIVATE OWNERS INTO SELLING THEIR LAND TO THE GOVERNMENT." Providing the funding through a dedicated, off budget perpetual money pipeline gives the agencies the funds to pressure landowners to sell. There are numerous instances where federal agencies have managed to acquire land even when specifically ordered by Congress not to (example: North Cascades National Park). As long as they are supplied with money, Federal managers have ways of dealing with landowners that they can not legally condemn. They will create even more "hardship cases" (legally so-called "willing sellers") by using tactics such as ceasing road maintenance or snow removal, closing roads, scaring buyers off with threats of regulation, withdrawing permits, causing circuitous routing that increases the costs of utility lines, and other harassment stopping just short of outright condemnation. This is why, since 1978, the House Appropriations Committee has retained the responsibility to oversee all land acquisitions. While Congress has generally done a poor job of this oversight at least there is now a forum and some opportunity to confront the worst system abuses that occur. THIS OFF BUDGET TRUST WILL END ACCOUNTABILITY AND OPEN THE WAY TO EVEN MORE ABUSE. The fund restriction on land condemnation is completely lacking on the grants provided that would allow STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS to be conduits for private land condemnation. In addition, it is not fiscally responsible to take such a large amount of money out of the yearly budget prioritization which is a weighing process which should be done against national needs that change from year to year.
Congressman Young (Senator Murkowski) is sponsoring a bill to make a $1.5 billion land acquisition trust fund.
YOUNG-MURKOWSKI: "FACT"
At no time are funding levels even close to $1.5 billion for Federal land acquisition. Congressman Young (Senator Murkowski), along with the House authors, are sponsoring a bill to provide a portion of Federal revenue generated from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas production to coastal states. The bill also provides money to fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund and state wildlife conservation programs. At present, states are receiving no monies from OCS revenues for important infrastructure, park, recreation, and wildlife programs.
ALRA: THE REAL STORY
This one time decision to set up multiple year entitlement funding can result in many billions of dollars being spent for land purchases in the next decade. As long as yearly appropriation votes are to be eliminated, THIS IS A MULTI BILLION DOLLAR DECISION. The bill mandates that 42% of the Title II funds must be used for Federal land acquisition ($159 million nationally). There is no prohibition in the bill on using the remaining funds in the $2 billion off budget trust for land acquisition. The step of moving from yearly appropriation and accountability for land acquisition funding to an unsupervised perpetual fund is a dangerous and dramatic change that gives immense latitude and discretion to unelected bureaucrats. NO WAY TO GET RID OF AN ENTITLEMENT LIKE THIS ONCE IT STARTS.
The bill is a threat to private property ownership throughout Alaska.
YOUNG-MURKOWSKI: "FACT"
The bill does not impact any private property in Alaska, or anywhere else in the United States. Rather, the bill provides significant new revenues to the State of Alaska including more then $110 million for coastal and marine programs, $16 million for state and local park and recreation programs and $23 million for state wildlife conservation and education programs.
ALRA: THE REAL STORY
TO SAY THAT THE BILL DOES NOT IMPACT ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY IS BLATANTLY UNTRUE AND MISLEADING FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE (AND BELOW). A minimum of $6.9 million/year is earmarked for Federal private land acquisition right here in Alaska and there is no prohibition against spending even more for that purpose as long as it is designed to be done under other parts of this bill. Consider what happened with the $900 million Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Settlement Trust. Half the money was used to buy private land in a state that is already 88% government owned! This result was never contemplated when the EVOS trust was set up. The money was supposed to be used for research and rehabilitation.
Bill supports land trusts, like the Nature Conservancy.
YOUNG-MURKOWSKI: "FACT"
The bill does not provide money for the Nature Conservancy or other land trusts.
ALRA: THE REAL STORY
ALSO UNTRUE. There is no prohibition in the bill of land trust involvement. Just because they are not mentioned by name in the bill as recipients does not mean that they will not continue to be conduits for Federal land purchase money as they always have been.
The bill would guarantee Federal agencies the money to attack landowners year after year.
YOUNG-MURKOWSKI: "FACT"
The bill does not provide regulatory authority to Federal agencies. It only provides funds to compensate willing sellers, many of whom have been waiting for decades, for compensation from the Federal government. It does not authorize any additional acreage to the Federal estate in Alaska or any other state. It does not provide Federal agencies with any condemnation authority.
ALRA: THE REAL STORY
THE BILL IS DANGEROUS BECAUSE IT PROVIDES MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF STEADY, UNSUPERVISED MONEY FOR BUREAUCRATS TO ABUSE THE AUTHORITY THEY ALREADY POSSESS. It is not necessary to provide any new regulatory authority; Federal agencies already have condemnation powers. The money provided by the bill will certainly result in substantial additional acreage being transferred to the Federal government within existing authorizations which have been unrealistically large for years and which have been unfunded. In reality, true "hardship cases" are rare. Congress must not allow itself to be duped into funding massive land purchases to address the few hardships out there. This bill will create even more hardship cases! Finally, government shouldn't be in the position of buying land just because someone says they are a hardship case. Congress must not abdicate its responsibility to watch where taxpayers money is being spent. Congress must continue to judge project worthiness.
The bill will give immense new regulatory power to the Federal land management agencies.
YOUNG-MURKOWSKI: "FACT"
The bill does not give the Federal land
management agencies any new authorities. In fact, the bill places additional
restrictions on Federal land acquisition in three separate clauses.
First, Federal land acquisition only can occur within the exterior boundaries
of units established by an Act of Congress and not units established by
Federal agencies. Second, any project in excess of $1 million* must be
approved by Congress. Last, the bill also mandates that two-thirds of the
Federal land acquisitions occur in the eastern United States.
* Now raised to $5 million in S 25.
ALRA: THE REAL STORY
It is ludicrous to claim that the bill has three additional clauses restricting Federal land acquisition! Clauses one and three apply to less than 8% of the trust funding (the Federal portion of the Title II). Clause two applies to only 18% of the trust funding (all of Title II). The rest of the funding is outside the scope of all three clauses -- and in any event they are not really effective restrictions anyway for the following reasons:
* First clause -- The exterior boundaries of units established by Congress refer to units such as National Parks, National Monuments, National Forests, National Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Wildlife Refuges etc. These areas typically have thousands of acres of private lands inside the original Congressionally authorized boundaries. In the vast majority of cases Congress never anticipated that ALL the private lands contained therein would be purchased by the Federal government. In recent years the land purchase abuses that have historically occurred inside these unit authorization boundaries have been reduced through congressional oversight of the House Appropriations Committee. Wronged landowners have been able to have their concerns addressed in that forum. This clause gives no protection whatever to landowners -- NO CHANGE.
* Second clause -- Congress now approves all land acquisition projects when it passes the national budget each year. This bill eliminates that approval for all projects less than $1 million (now raised to $5 million in S 25) and even that limit applies only to the Title II funds. With the new funds in this bill, Title I and Title III funds can be used for land acquisition, no matter how large an amount, without any approval being necessary.
* Third (Last) clause -- The "east" actually is defined as east of the 100th meridian. This area encompasses all the south, east, mid-west, and north-central states! This money will harm private landowners in many rural areas and could devastate isolated communities that are very much like Alaska in character. As such they have many similar problems to Alaska in dealing with the Federal government and in maintaining a vibrant multiple use local economy. These communities are valuable allies to have in supporting Alaska issues. They understand us and they have helped -- on ANWR, on SE Alaska Timber. To violate principle and harm them just so Alaska can tap into the OCS fund is wrong and may not be politically sensible either. Understand that many Alaskans have land in such rural areas in the "lower 48" and they are threatened by this bill.
Congressman Young (Senator Murkowski) is a supposed friend of private property rights.
YOUNG-MURKOWSKI: "FACT"
Congressman Young (Senator Murkowski) is, and will continue, to be a strong supporter and ally of private property rights groups. Year-in and year-out he has obtained a perfect score of 100 from the League of Private Property Voters and other advocates for private land ownership.
ALRA: THE REAL STORY
Senator Murkowski's 100% rating has already ended because of his sponsorship of S 25 and Congressman Young's will too if he signs on. The League of Private Property Voters has sent a letter to all Congressmen and Senators indicating that sponsorship of this bill will be counted AGAINST their record. AND THE BILL IS SO THREATENING AND DANGEROUS THAT, FOR ONLY THE SECOND TIME IN HISTORY, THE LEAGUE WILL DOUBLE COUNT A VOTE FOR THE BILL AGAINST A MEMBER'S PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION RECORD. American Land Rights is the chief sponsor of The League of Private Property Voters along with 600 other organizations and they are one of the many organizations that have issued nationwide alerts against this bill!
ALRA: Notwithstanding comments received, the bill was reintroduced anyway into the 106th Congress as S 25, virtually unchanged from the previous Congress. American Land Rights also is requesting constructive comments addressing the concerns herein. Please access: www.landrights.org
