Ozarks Property Rights Congress Meeting
April 28 -7:00 p.m.—Hayloft Restaurant 
Mountain Grove, Missouri

Come early if you care to eat as no food is allowed in the meeting room,
due to limited restaurant staff.

Meeting Topics

Larry Dills from Rogersville, will talk about the Missouri Conservation Department releasing the names & addresses of folks who have bought hunting or fishing permits, to the Appalachian Wildlife Foundation. AWF, in turn, sends solicitation letters to those people on the MDC list. AWF gave $50,000 to MDC to assist in bringing elk to Missouri.
 

 There will be updates on several AG bills. Doreen will discuss HB209, which infringes on private property owners ability to protect their property from serious nuisances. It has passed both houses & is waiting for the Governor’s signature to become law. We are asking that  Gov. Nixon veto HB209, as it effectively implements statewide zoning &  has great potential to destroy one’s ability to protect their property.
 

Bob will talk about HB458, the Missouri Farmland Trust Act has passed through the House 157-0 & is now in the Senate Agriculture, Food Production & Outdoor Resource Committee. Do we really want the state of Missouri in the real estate leasing business? Let the private sector determine what happens to the land. Senator Chuck Purgason is a member of that committee – Call him.
  

By meeting time we will probably know if the Governor has signed SB113 which modifies Prop B. The Humane Society of the US is using national TV to encourage out-of-state folks to call Gov. Nixon urging him not to sign the bill. It was HSUS money that passed Prop B  in the first place.

Against the Bill

The Ozarks Property Rights Congress and all of its branches are devoted to protecting private property and private property owners from infringements of enjoyment and usage as well as constraints on use from any source.

 HB 209 represents a dangerous constraint on use and enjoyment for many while securing the use of property for a few. As such, we are against this bill, and all other bills that are similar to HB 209.

In particular, we find the constraint of the cap on the fair market value of a property to be repugnant to common sense. The market values and availability of property fluctuate, particularly in this economy.  There is no provision of compensation for relocation costs incurred by someone who is unable to any longer enjoy their property due to their neighbor’s property usage.

 Let’s not pretend. If the operation of a large CAFO has rendered a private property unusable by an adjacent or nearby property owner, the fair market value of the property in question is going to be reduced. Also, the only entity interested in procuring the property will likely be the entity that made the property uninhabitable to begin with. This is decidedly unjust, and certainly does not insure a level playing field to all affected parties.

 Currently, in the State of Missouri, we can seek remedy for violations of our use and enjoyment of our private property in court, and the establishment of CAFO’s can be handled locally by those affected by that type of property usage. This bill would remove that capacity for remedy.

 If there were a clause in this bill constraining the limitations established herein to new property owners who, with knowledge and therefore implied consent, moved in next to these types of operations and then decided to file suits against an occupant who had well established prior usage and a sound operational history, we might be able to consider being neutral or possibly even supportive of the bill. Such is not the case.

 This bill is effectively providing eminent domain for agribusiness enterprises, which continue to consolidate markets and have negative affects on local communities and adjoining property owners. It implements state wide zoning that favors consolidated corporate interests above independent private property owners and does not protect prior possession and usage. As such, we stand against this bill.

 It is never the right of a property owner to destroy the use and value of another property owner. This bill would enshrine in statute the ability of one type of property use to prevail over all other types of property use and enjoyment. It is not fair, it is not just, and it far from reasonable.

 The system we have in place is sufficient and affords private property owners the ability to both protect and use their land. It is not broken, so don’t fix it.

 We urge the Committee to vote NO on HB 209 and all similar bills.

 Thank you for your time today.

 Doreen Hannes
 Ozarks Property Rights Congress
 (417) 962 0030

Good Sounding Agriculture Bills, Not Good For Private Property Owners

 All of the bills cited below deserve the attention of private property owners. Currently, in the State of Missouri, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) have conditions placed upon them. They are subject o inspections and specific constraints. Those constraints, currently, are generally effective, and landowners surrounding such properties are able to seek redress within the system for infringements and either perceived or real property debasements in value, use or enjoyment reductions. If these bills go through, adjacent landowners will lose  a large degree of their ability to receive just compensation for lowered land values, usage abilities, and habitability.

  Here in the Ozarks, we have not yet been overrun by CAFO’s. While we do have our fair share of derelict equipment and auto reservoirs, we have the ability to address such issues within our own communities, and to reason with each other in the local area to any degree deemed necessary.

 The position of the OPRC is that the way things are currently is just fine with us. If we do have a problem, we can address the problem. There is already a process in place to take care of these things within the individual counties. And if we are simply offended by someone else’s idea of yard art, we can simply suck it up and be thankful we don’t need a permit to bury a parakeet, or speak with them if it is so terrifically troublesome. If there is actual danger or destruction involved, we can seek remedy at law. We do not need, want,  nor support ANY efforts at State wide zoning, no matter how well intentioned or even misdirected, those efforts may be. If you want accountability, keep the authority local.

HB 209                      http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills111/biltxt/perf/HB0209P.htm
House Bill 209 is a bill seemingly designed to halt frivolous nuisance suits in agricultural venues against property being used in a fashion that affects neighbors or adjacent property owners in a negative fashion. There are a few problems with this bill. First of all, it limits property owners’ ability to seek redress in court beyond an undefined percentage of reduction in fair rental value. It also varies the levels of compensation potentially available to a property owner impacted by the undefined terms “permanent” and “temporary” nuisance.

  The position of the OPRC is that, while it is imperative that individual property rights to use and benefit from one’s land is paramount, it is never beneficial to reduce another’s right to enjoy, use, and have the full benefit of their property. This bill curtails the ability of one party’s ability for redress in favor of the purported offending party.  In effect, this is State wide zoning, and we cannot support such a bill.

SB187    http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=4095340
 Senate Bill 187, is completely unacceptable. It implements county constraints and mandates for “nuisance” properties that house such things as derelict farms, derelict farm equipment and the like. In effect, the State presumes to confer the right to control counties to the counties themselves! The counties already have this within their purview and we do not need the state to claim jurisdiction over county authority in any guise.

  This bill would require any owner of a “salvage or junkyard” to get a license, and the definition of what would constitute a “salvage or junk yard” is undefined. It requires the owners of such places to put up a 10 foot high fence to stop the view of passers-by from being impacted by the presence of such operations.

SB278   http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=4147456
 This bill does very much the same thing as the above bills.  It effectively attempts to reduce the ability of adjacent/adjoining landholders to be able to seek compensation or redress only in the case of nuclear wastes. This bill is wrong headed; and again, perverts the ability of land owners to protect their own property rights.