King County CAPR's Thursday, December 6th meeting featured speaker Daniel Himebaugh, of the Pacific Legal Foundation, who spoke about The Precautionary Principle vs. Essential Nexus. An in depth discussion on the over-dependance on the theory of the precautionary principle of many in government and others making decisions regarding the environment and land use. Here is a link to allow reading of the Paper written by Brian Hodges and Daniel Himebaugh: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1533574 , thanks to the Social Science Research Network for providing this online content.
Don't Forget to Mark Your Calendar!
CAPR 2013 Banquet
Property Rights- The ONLY Sustainable Solution
Saturday, March 16th, 2013, 5:00pm
Southcenter DoubleTree Guest Suites
16500 Southcenter Parkway
This year the keynote speaker will be Dave Hunnicutt, of Oregonians in Action.
The Fiscal Cliff and the Showdown Between Redistribution and Property Rights
by Tim Kowal on December 6, 2012 As the so-called fiscal cliff so-called negotiations plod ahead, I’ve been contemplating whether the President’s sought-after redistribution really is a mortal blow to those who believe in economic liberty–and to the GOP, who at least pays more lip service to that principle than their counterparts. Those who believe there is a right in our property and income believe ...read more ordinary-gentlemen.com
By Eric Boehm | PA Independent FORFEITURE: In a decision filed last month, Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini called the state’s civil asset forfeiture law “state-sanctioned theft” and ordered a lower court to re-examine a recent forfeiture case in Centre County. HARRISBURG – A Commonwealth Court ruling is being hailed as a victory for property rights and a small blow against civil asset forfeiture laws, which allow the state to seize private property that may be connected to a crime. In a decision filed last month, Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini called the state’s civil asset forfeiture law “state-sanctioned theft” and ordered...read more... paindependent.com/
If the federal government destroyed your property by flooding it, you’d probably expect that they would be required by the U.S. Constitution to compensate you for your property loss. Remarkably, in the first of a trio of property rights cases to be decided by the Supreme Court this term, the federal government argued that it had no obligation to compensate property owners in such scenarios. On Tuesday, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court rejected the government’s theory – an important victory for those who support property rights. We’ve blogged recently about the other two cases in the Court’s Takings Clause trilogy...read more... oregonbusinessreport.com
County to Appeal Loss in Land-Takings Case By KEVIN WADLOW Property owners who want to develop 10 acres on No Name Key as the Galleon Bay subdivision won a victory in state appeals court Wednesday -- but the decades-old legal battle likely has not heard its last round fired. Even the written opinion from the Third District Court of Appeal starts with a nautically themed history: "When the apt-named Galleon [Bay Corp.] first set out to develop its property, it could not have possibly imagined the tumultuous seas it would encounter in the decades that followed." If upheld...read more www.keysnet.com
Property rights battle in Dallasby JASON WHEELER
DALLAS - Brittany Bailey and her husband are building a new home in Belmont, the bastion of historic preservation in east Dallas. "We designed a beautiful prairie style home," said Bailey. However, there are no plans yet for a house warming. Instead the couple is ...read more.... www.wfaa.com
This will lead you to an uplifting article on Citizen Review Online. Written by Damon W. Root for Reason Magazine The federal government suffered a major defeat today at the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States. In their unanimous decision, the justices rejected the government’s sweeping claim that a series of recurring floods induced by the U.S.
by truthfarmer in Uncategorized The USDA has been working concertedly since the 1930?s to decrease the number of citizen’s in the US who are actually engaged in farming. The focus, especially since the 1950?s has been to tell farmers to “get big or get out”. Now Vilsack has the audacity to state “It’s time to have a grown up conversation with rural America”. I guess this is the tenor we can expect as we move “Forward”. My comment to all of non-rural America is, “Let Them Eat Grass”.read more...truthfarmer.com