Nevada Ranch Standoff: Could these new rules, proposed for Eminent Domain, regenerate the Commons?

agent_photo_120_1362677460And by this, I — and I’m sure author Rich Buckley — invoke the common field of inquiry and exploration, the common field of harmony and good feeling, fairness, justice, compassion — in short, relationship. And is not “culture” the field in which relationships are cultivated, sowed, tended, and harvested, over and over and over again, each aspect of the cycle recognized, honored, and let go of, all in due time? How do we regenerate our sadly crumbling Culture, if not through creatively increasing the Commons?

I suggest you read this article, originally submitted as a comment on the post, Nevada Range Wars, carefully before you jump to conclusions and recoil at the very words “eminent domain.” Rich Buckley integrates a professional knowledge of real estate with a spiritual focus on reconciliation.

Four Possible New Rules for Eminent Domain that would Help Heal Land Disputes

If we are going to be a nation of laws, BLM should balance the demands of their politically correct science with condemnation: i.e., (a) buy out Bundy’s beef on the hoof, (b) appraise and buy out Bundy’s grazing right contracts. But that’s never the mind set of those who prefer top-down regulation. They always first vilify the target population they’re going after, then pull the rug out from under conventional social contracts and practices through revising environmental assessment. Why not for once just try using the law of condemnation – eminent domain.

I’ve always believed eminent domain could be revised to become respected as a fair tool of public-taking by revising it’s most unfair elements of historic practice: (1) Level The Playing Field: Make government pay all court costs and “reasonable” legal fees of the condemned. That one change would do more to insure peaceful solutions to public taking and avoid courtroom entanglements than anything else I can think of. (2) Full Disclosure: Require open disclosure of both parties of all information and planning be placed in neutral escrow accessible by both parties (see more below). (3) Offer the condemned the higher of fair market value of the current highest and best use or the fair market value of the proposed future proposed government allowed/proposed use. The condemned has a choice. (4) Allow the condemned the right and privilege to render to the public a gift for public use, that public use sought by government in return for generous tax benefits should the condemned be so disposed.

This Bundy scenario was not making sense until this interview came out:

Now this starts to make sense:

This land broker probably has the right scoop:

“Rusty Hill a former Land Broker who worked in that area for nearly 20 years issued this to our news room — “It is not about turtles it is about water. There are developers working for military contractors that want that land and water for mining weapons grade minerals for industry… they want to sell the land by the highway for real estate development because it’s close to I-15 and the Bundy’s have been refusing to sell what they actually own directly for over 20 years. Many buyers sent me out there with crazy offers for that land for many years. It is prime real estate not worthless desert. There is a natural gas pipeline going through there and lots of water under ground too. Somebody connected to a military corporation is using political power and the BLM to muscle those people out.”

“BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch “We bring you now the latest from the Bundy Ranch, where the militia has arrived”

If BLM where going to be held accountable under my proposed suggested 4 rules of Leveling the Playing Field, all this information coming forth now: Fracking interests, Water, Lobby efforts by Corporate Entities and government agencies and politicians, politicians by name who address or correspond on the issue with the government agency, Military Contracts, Hired Government Contractors … all… this information and costs, and dollars expended, donated and applied, would be placed and/or disclosed into a neutral escrow for the parties in the condemnation suit for full knowledge of long term intent behind the taking. Now I do not expect top-down planners, to like my 4 suggested rules of condemnation suggested above, but it will be in the true public interest in the long run.

Why is making changes to Eminent Domain important: So this kind of talk need not come to pass:

A.K. again. And see this, from my old friend and long-term activist, Bill Chisholm, in southern Idaho.

Screenshot 2014-04-11 20.40.29


This entry was posted in 2014, conscious dying, conscious grieving, dark doo-doo, local action, Uranus square Pluto, visions of the future, waking up, wild new ideas. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Nevada Ranch Standoff: Could these new rules, proposed for Eminent Domain, regenerate the Commons?

  1. Government officials like to use eminent domain for the convenience of their preferred policies and/or the enrichment of themselves and their buddies. Usually, they get away with it, because the folks on the receiving end are too few and powerless to hold their tormentors to account.

    In Hackensack, New Jersey, however, the officials who targeted Michael Monaghan’s property for seizure as part of an “area in need of redevelopment,” even while denying him the right to develop it himself, pushed too many people around, too often.

    Consequently voters booted out the entire city council.

  2. Visionkeeper says:

    Hey Ann….What are the astrological influences pertaining to this Bundy showdown??? Just wondering. You can feel the tension sizzling in the air EVERYWHERE!….Thanks 🙂 VK

  3. The REAL Truth Behind Bundy Ranch Land-Grab in Nevada
    The role of the BLM is to secure this land for corporate interests and ultimately Agenda 21 initiatives in conjunction with “other federal, state and local agencies.”

  4. Rich Buckley says:

    Land Rights!
    by Drake

    Partial Quote. The original full comment directed at Fox News can be found here:

    I’m less interested in the Fox News aspect and more interested in Drake’s informative references of law. Drake is referring to a supreme court decision regarding use of Federal Lands by grandfathered tenants which rancher Bundy clearly represents, his family’s use dating back to 1877 through an uninterrupted lineage of family ranchers.

    “The basic ruling states that the fed has no right to try taking grandfathered land rights, charge any fees, and offer any interference to ranching or farming on public lands by changing the rules.”

    Drake goes on to make a point on which I concur …the property owner may be a pillar of their community all their lives, but when the government decides to take your property, you immediately become the adversary and are treated ruthlessly, kept in the dark, and must fend for yourself against the immense powers of the state. The practices of condemnation law need to be changed. My 4 points suggested above attempt to do so in a way that is good for everyone in the long run.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *