Current weather

  • Overcast
  • 59°
    Overcast
  • Comment

Restrictions on property rights amount to theft

Posted: December 20, 2012 - 3:53pm  |  Updated: December 21, 2012 - 10:24am

In 1996, the Kenai Borough began to take control of private land from property owners, with no compensation to the owner. Then in 2008 and again in 2011, the Kenai Borough took more land from private property owners. Since 1996 the borough has created local ordinances to legitimize their taking from more than 4000 parcels of private property. Most property owners were unaware their property was taken until well after the fact.

The Merriam Webster dictionary definition of “STEAL” is “to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice.” The definition of “THIEF” is “one that steals especially stealthily or secretly.”

Some people believe this taking was justified for the “public good.” Using that philosophy, if a thief steals money from the bank and gives it to charity, no crime was committed! Our Borough’s taking of private property rights is a questionably “legal” form of theft.

Fortunately there are still good people on the Kenai Peninsula who can tell the difference between right and wrong, that are fighting this theft of private property. They have organized a group called, “Citizens 4 Responsible Waterfront Land Use.” Their web site “C4RWLU.ORG” has details of this ongoing theft and how you can join the fight. Victims of this ongoing government sponsored theft from 1996 onward, need to join the fight and help bring these thieves to justice. Our Current Borough Assembly Members and Mayor Navarre can and should work toward complete repeal of KPB 21.18 or shall be accessories to these crimes against citizens.

Every fair-minded person should become aware of the current and proposed government taking of individual property rights. If citizens don’t oppose the loss of their property rights, our Borough will likely continue to chip away at your right to own property. Your property rights may be next one sacrificed for the “public good.”

  • Comment

Comments (10) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
northernlights
206
Points
northernlights 12/21/12 - 06:46 pm
3
1
northernlights

Explain your letter. What do you mean the borough keeps taking your land. How much land, a city lot? Or is it feet, in order to protect the river banks?
If it happens to be feet and to protect the banks from errosion and ruining habitat for fry, then I suggest you invest some of your time in educating yourself regarding this.
On the other hand if they are literaly stealing your land and using it without your knowledge, or selling it. I don't buy it.

AK49er
131
Points
AK49er 12/21/12 - 09:28 pm
6
1
Property Rights

Mr McBride, you are wrong. Your riverfront property is not being " stolen " from you by the Borough. The Borough ordinace that protects anadromous stream habitat is in place to protect a resource that belongs, by the Alaska state constitution, to ALL Alaskans. Salmon, and other anadromous species, benefit all of us , often in ways that we may not comprend.
Any person (or corporation) that owns property along any salmon stream in Alaska is not only priviledged, but is also responsible to the greater populace to do no harm to the resource. And contrary to what you may perceive, your property values will only increase with protections in place. How many places are left in the world where wild salmon are abundant?
I'm an old man now, and I've been around the world a bit. But Alaska has been home my entire adult life, and I care deeply about it's future. Let's all try to keep the "big picture" in mind when we make decisions that affect the common good.

beaverlooper
2349
Points
beaverlooper 12/22/12 - 01:12 pm
3
1
How is this this ordnance an

How is this this ordnance an different than HEA or another like organization having right of way across my property? Not taking a position ,just an honest question.

Erinyes
23
Points
Erinyes 12/22/12 - 02:32 pm
4
1
ACT front

This "new" group is the same tired group that sues the KPB every time they concoct misinformation and spin it into a losing case. Mayor Navarre has already made lots of compromises, provided opportunities for change and tried to accommodate some legitimate concerns by forming a task force. The task force has held a number of meetings to help members better understand the role and value of shoreline as it relates to maintaining our healthy wild Salmon runs. Representatives from the ACT front on the task force, namely Fred Braun, have done nothing to help property owners. With this ordinance, the fact is that anything that exists now can stay as it is, there are lots of new water dependent uses and construction that can continue to occur within 50' of salmon bearing water. What it does do is stop the doze it all down and stabilize it with junk car mentality that still exists. The science is very clear that the banks and the vegetation should remain intact as much as possible or we'll wind up like the rest of the Pacific Northwest.

bluffbunny
73
Points
bluffbunny 12/22/12 - 09:00 pm
0
4
Theft of private property

Reading the replies from Northern Lights and AK 49er, has reaffirmed how successful the government has been, in teaching the 'wonders' of more government and their Socialist agenda. That's what it is : taking away private property in the name of 'public good'. With THEM deciding what is 'GOOD'.

What is the difference in whether they TAKE one foot or your whole place? Who guarantees that 50 ft will be all they take? Once you start allowing government to take your property without just compensation, there is no limit to it. IT IS WRONG.

And you, Northern Lights, need to educate yourself as to this issue. The Borough first started taking private property 16 years ago, under the guise of improving fish return. I ask you if after 16 years of government 'management', last year showed any improvement? I think not. So how long do we give this idea a chance? 20 years? 50 years? WHEN might we be able to point at the facts and say their idea has worked?

The FACT is, they can show NO EVIDENCE that YOU and your use of your own property were ever causing a problem, nor have they shown they can make any improvement by claiming possession of your property.

And AK 49er, your assertion that private property belongs to ALL, is right out of the Communist handbook! Did 'ALL' earn the money to buy your property? Do 'ALL' pay your property taxes?

Everyone I know respects this land and what we have, and those who have property affected by this ordinance paid a premium to have property along the water, but we were not even consulted or notified that the government was going to seize our property!

WE were never given an opportunity to have any input into this arbitrary decision. If we, the people, had been allowed to participate, a better solution than confiscation might well have been found. A better way to solve the problems may have resulted from meetings and discussions, without creating the division we have now.

Your view that government has all the answers is inconceivable to any concept of reality. Look at the mess this country is in now, thanks to out-of-control government!

And for Beaverlooper, the main difference with this ordinance and HEA's right-of-way, you don't have to ASK HEA for permission to use your own land.

I, like you , am a life-long Alaskan and I view with horror the thought that we must give up our rights in order to allow government to make decisions in which WE, THE PEOPLE should be involved. It is not only that the Borough Assembly took this controversial action without having PUBLIC INPUT, they cannot point to any facts or evidence that your use of your property has anything to do with dwindling fish stocks, nor that their arbitrary action will solve anything.

The Assembly and Mayor Navarre need to repeal this whole ordinance and begin again, this time including property owners and the people of the Borough into the discussion.

beaverlooper
2349
Points
beaverlooper 12/22/12 - 09:20 pm
4
0
But your wrong ,you can't put

But your wrong ,you can't put a fence across a right of way can't put structures on the right of way .trees are restricted on a right of way .You do have to ask permission to use your own land.

Unglued
228
Points
Unglued 12/24/12 - 10:01 pm
5
0
There were plenty of chances to comment

bluffbunny: You had more than one chance to comment on the ordinance that you're so dead-set against, but you apparently chose to not to be involved in your government. As a property owner, it's your responsibility to know what your elected government officials are doing. Notifications about borough assembly, planning commission and other meetings are made public by law. There's a saying that goes something like "You get the government you deserve." And there's another one that goes "You snooze, you lose."

On a more positive note, the habitat protection ordinance in question is a good thing to ensure the we'll continue to have salmon on the Kenai Peninsula. It will enhance property values, not lower them.

WJK
8
Points
WJK 12/28/12 - 11:56 am
0
1
5th Amendment Taking

What would the framers of our Constitution say if they were NOT allowed to use their property in the name of "the common good"????????? (That why they put the 5th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution!)

And... how does the Borough know what's good for us -- better than we know???????? (It sounds like a "Big Brother" talking.)

I agree with Mike McBride. Taking, restricting and stealing are the same thing -- if they don't pay you for it -- and get your agreement to sell it to them.

Seafarer
1147
Points
Seafarer 01/02/13 - 06:30 pm
0
0
Stealing For Habitat?

What you said would [filtered word] off the pope. But, is this in regard to the banks of the Kenai? Shouldn't it be to the benefit of the Richie Riches that "own" riverbank to make that riverbank sustainable? I would think by virtue of owning that riverbank it would be your responsibility to maintain it in perpetuity.

I think the state owns riverbank. I'm going to look it up later...

Seafarer
1147
Points
Seafarer 01/02/13 - 06:42 pm
0
0
A Rig In Every Yard

Sort of off topic, but what if we amended our Constitution to let property owners have sub-surface rights? Rigs on every lot that wants `em. Yes, they are ugly, but I have seen some amazing paint jobs! Day and night they bob, and every gallon is making you money. Man! Again...they are ugly as heck; you've seen them in places like California. practically on every lot.

Back to Top

Spotted

Please Note: You may have disabled JavaScript and/or CSS. Although this news content will be accessible, certain functionality is unavailable.

Skip to News

« back

next »

  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321268/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321253/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321248/
  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321243/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321208/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/320593/
  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321173/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321163/
My Gallery

CONTACT US

  • 150 Trading Bay Rd, Kenai, AK 99611
  • Switchboard: 907-283-7551
  • Circulation and Delivery: 907-283-3584
  • Newsroom Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Business Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Accounts Receivable: 907-335-1257
  • View the Staff Directory
  • or Send feedback

ADVERTISING

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES

SOCIAL NETWORKING

MORRIS ALASKA NEWS