Missouri Farm Bureau
|
Kevin Craig - "Liberty Under God"
|
| We believe that
Farm Bureau should use its resources and expertise to persuade public
officials or candidates to respect private ownership of property and
the chain of title that guarantees the ownership of private property. |
Kevin Craig believes property
rights are more important than "human
rights." |
| We urge strict
adherence to the Missouri "Private Property Rights" law
which requires state governmental agencies to review and modify their
proposed rules and regulations in order to prevent the further loss of
private property rights. We favor passage of a similar bill at the
federal level. |
|
| If there is a
loss in either market value or production capability of the land, the
landowners should be justly compensated. |
|
| A property
owner should be allowed to have a cause of action against a
governmental entity to recover damages if such governmental entity
applies a statute, rule or regulation that reduces the use of the
individual's property or the fair market value of the individual's
property. |
|
| We oppose the
use of off-shore drilling fees for purchase of private lands. |
|
| We oppose the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA). |
|
| We support
statutory fines for malicious, unfounded, or repeated false reports of
environmental infractions. We oppose the improper use of environmental
law to harass property owners. |
|
| American
Heritage Trust Act |
|
| We
are opposed to the American Heritage Trust Act concept which would
establish a multi-billion dollar federal trust fund to acquire private
land for recreational and other public use. |
|
| Billboards |
|
| The federal
highway beautification law should be amended to include an
agricultural exemption allowing billboards to be erected on
agricultural property owned by an agri-businessman wishing to
advertise his own business. |
|
| Biological Resources Survey |
|
| We oppose efforts by the Department of Interior or any
other department or agency of the federal government to conduct a
national survey of all biological resources, which we believe will
result in further restrictions on private property. |
|
| Eminent
Domain |
|
| The government
acquisition of land and buildings should be severely restricted in
cases where reasonable alternatives are available. We oppose the
acquisition of land and buildings from an unwilling seller simply to
keep development within a particular political boundary. |
MoFB is on track in these criticisms of
eminent domain, but they do not go far enough. Eminent domain is
wrong, even as it is found in the Bill of Rights. Government does not
have the right to force a landowner to sell at any price but one to
which the landowner freely and voluntarily consents. |
| We believe
state statutes regarding the power of eminent domain should be revised
to strengthen the protection of landowners from condemnation with
assurance that needed rural infrastructure such as roads, power lines
and water and sewer lines can be built in a timely and economical
manner with equitable compensation granted to all affected landowners.
We believe entities with condemnation authority should be required to
consider alternate routes and to directly notify and publicly disclose
routes for proposed right-of-way expansion to affected landowners. |
Eminent
Domain
The Takings Clause
|
| We oppose the
use of eminent domain for the acquisition of land to be resold to
private owners or for the transfer of property from one private entity
to another for the purpose of economic development. We believe that
easements acquired by an entity with condemnation authority should
return to the landowner if unused after ten years. We oppose granting
eminent domain authority to cable companies or any other entities that
do not already have eminent domain authority. |
|
| We believe
eminent domain authority should not be used for purposes of private
development or recreational facilities, and the term "public
use" in eminent domain statutes and the state constitution
excludes these purposes. |
|
| We support further restrictions on the use of eminent
domain to acquire blighted property in both urban and rural areas. |
|
| We believe
landowners in eminent domain cases should have five years from the
time of the original settlement in which to negotiate claims for
damage from construction and maintenance that may not have been
confirmed at the time of the initial settlement. |
|
| We believe that
when it becomes necessary for any city to condemn private property
outside the city limits, for any authorized purpose, the governing
body of the city must first be required to obtain the approval of the
county commission of the county containing such property. |
|
| We support
changes to the Missouri Constitution which promote our established
policy on property rights. Furthermore, if deemed to be a valuable
tool to that end, we support the use of a Missouri Farm Bureau
initiated initiative petition process to effect those changes. |
|
| We support allowing an adequate period of time for Missouri's eminent
domain reform law enacted in 2006 to be tested before pursuing further
changes. |
|
| Farmland
Preservation |
|
| The rapid and
continuing loss of prime farmland to soil erosion and to residential,
commercial, industrial, recreational and governmental use should be a
concern to every American. Solutions to the problem must be found.
But, as we seek solutions, we should remember that even though land
ownership is a sacred trust, private ownership of property is the
foundation for a free society, and public policies that unduly
interfere with private property rights are a threat to our American
democratic system. |
|
| We believe any
proposal to provide state funds for farmland preservation should be
subject to thorough public review and comment and should protect the
private property rights of participating landowners who enter into
agreements to keep their farmland in production. |
|
| The best way to
preserve farmland is to allow the farmer to profitably farm by
developing a combination of incentives and policies that will preserve
and conserve his land, protect his rights as a landowner and allow him
a reasonable return on his investment and labor. |
|
| We therefore
support: |
|
| 1. farmland
assessments based on productive capability; |
|
| 2. abolition of
all estate taxes; |
|
| 3. adequate and
reasonable credit for farmers; and |
|
| 4. cost sharing
for soil conserving improvements. |
|
| And, we
therefore oppose: |
|
| 1. excessive
governmental rules and regulations; |
|
| 2. exclusive
agricultural zoning; |
|
| 3. unnecessary
governmental acquisition of farmland; |
|
| 4. exploitation
of the "willing seller" covenant to justify farmland
acquisition by public or private entities; and |
|
| 5. forced
annexation. |
|
| We oppose
federal or state legislation that would deny, postpone or restrict the
property rights of landowners without just compensation such as the
Natural Streams Act, wetlands, endangered species act, railway and
utility abandonment. |
|
| We support an
aggressive education effort to make landowners aware of the potential
adverse consequences of land trust agreements and conservation
easements . |
|
| Fence Law |
|
| We support the
existing Missouri fence law. |
|
| Heritage Corridors |
|
| We oppose the Mississippi River Heritage Corridor and any
other proposed Heritage Corridor and all their implications. |
|
| We also oppose
any other plan that removes or threatens the rights of property
owners. |
|
| National
Trails Act |
|
| We believe
adjacent landowners should be given the first option to acquire
abandoned rights-of-way. In addition, railroad rights-of-way, whether
owned by the railroad or obtained by easements, should not be
converted to any other purpose after the railroad company ceases to
use the line for rail traffic. We oppose any federal or state law,
such as the National Trails Act, which attempts to circumvent
landowners' easement rights by using the abandoned line for some other
purpose. |
|
| If not repealed
altogether, we believe that the National Trails System Act should be
amended to allow only those abandoned railroad rights-of-way which
have a realistic probability of being used again someday for a
railroad be approved for interim use as recreational trails. The state
or other organization which receives certification for interim trail
use of an abandoned railroad must be held responsible for fencing,
taxes, maintenance of the right-of-way, and other such costs which
were required of the railroad and should also be responsible for
compensating the owners of the right-of-way for use of the property
easement. |
|
| Property
Easements |
|
| We believe that when a property easement is no longer
used for the purpose for which it was granted, or by the entity
specific to the utility to which it was granted, that the full control
of that property return to the landowner. All unused easements should
have a sunset clause of no more than ten years. |
|
| All
easements should be returned to the landowner within one year after
abandonment of its original purpose. |
|
| Scenic
Byways |
|
| We support the
promotion of tourism in rural Missouri, however, we believe all
applications for scenic byway designations must be subjected to
thorough public review and comment and should not be made without the
approval of affected landowners. |
|
| We believe that
landowners in unincorporated areas affected by scenic byways proposals
and corridor management plans should have discretionary authority to
approve scenic byway designation. |
|
| State
Planning Commission |
|
| We are opposed
to the development of an appointed state land use and development
commission to regulate the use of private property in Missouri. |
|
| Streams and
Road Beds |
|
| We support
enforcement of the Missouri State Constitution and statutes which
would require the State Tax Commission to assess and tax abutting
landowners for property between the discernible streambanks, other
waterways, and easements to protect their property rights. |
|
| We oppose the
current interpretation of trespass on floatable streams which excludes
gravel bars or the low banks. We support strengthening trespass laws
to include gravel bars and the low banks. |
|