I don't have a law degree and stayed in the wrong motel as well but it sure
looks like the cited case and decision is germane to the posters problem.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Grant. I was unaware of this
organization but will be checking them out.
I had a dear friend (WW II B-17 tail gunner, Fireman, PI, Ham, computer
hobbyist, Radio Relay service provider) who sued the US Gov in the form of
the BLM. Johnny come lately BLM personnel reinterpreted my friend's
contract after decades of use. The suit dragged on for 7 years and was
finally settled after my friend tracked down the retired Government worker
who had negotiated the contract originally. (The Gov guy was in his 90's in
a Florida assisted care facility) Armed with a sworn affidavit attesting to
the Government's intent when making the contract my friend prevailed and was
an instant double digit millionaire.
Hopefully our member's situation can be salvaged by the precedent cited and
or some help from the PLF. This sort of nonsense is a major contributor to
my decision to sell my postage stamp in San Diego and buy 160 acre cattle
ranch in a rural area where there are no permits required except for the
septic system and for connecting a driveway to the highway both of which are
not much hassle. So long as any tower can't fall on a neighbor's property
or I don't radiate too much energy into a neighbor's property and I don't
get cross threaded with the FAA over tower heights I can do as I please.
Nearest neighbor's houses are over a quarter mile away.
Thanks again, Grant.
Patrick AF5CK
-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Saviers
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 5:48 PM
To: Dan Schaaf
Cc: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Towable towers available from the government
Dan,
The Supremes recently ruled on a similar case, see
http://www.pacificlegal.org/releases/PLF-statement-on-Koontz-property-rights-victory-at-the-Supreme-Court
You might take a copy of the decision to USWFS and also contact PLF for
assistance.
btw PLF is worth supporting IMHO.
Grant KZ1W
On 8/31/2013 4:09 AM, Dan Schaaf wrote:
I am presently in discussion ( argument ) with US Fish and Wildlife over
property that I own that I want to build a retirement home on. They
dispute an Environmental Survey that I paid to have done. The survey says
that there are no FL Scrub Jays within 850 ft around my property. These
birds are declining in population. The USFWS claims that there were
sightings as recently as 2007 near the edge of my 850 buffer circle. The
birds live on average 12 years. Sightings are generally adult birds which
if you do the math, by now, 2013 , they likely dead or re-nested
elsewhere. And these are just sightings, not nests. The birds fly from the
nest and back to it. They are very territorial.
Nevertheless, USFWS refuses to even consider new updated data from
surveys. Seems to me that new data should have more value to them than old
data. They agree until you try to then pin them down on releasing your
property. Then they come up with some other excuses such as " we really do
not want any surveys done in that particular neighborhood". Or, "we
welcome new data but we do not necessarily use it".
Now, that statement smacks of government control on where you buy or sell
property or where you choose to live. And certainly impacts the
livelihood of those who do environmental surveys. And of course old data
means they do not have to lift a finger to do any work, just stay employed
until retirement doing nothing. They do not even suggest doing a second
survey to validate the first survey and they will not come to the parcel
and check for themselves.
But, there is a solution. It is called Mitigation Fee. You pay them
$18,000 per 1/4 acre to free up your land. They then are supposed to use
that money to develop other areas for the birds to flourish. But, they do
not move the nests from your land !!! They let the bulldozers kill off the
birds that you just paid to save !
I have 3/4 acre parcel and that equates to $54K mitigation fee which I
refuse to pay nor do I have in my bank. Nice chunk of land for towers and
verticals.
Can my congressman help? They have indicated that they would work on it if
I ask them to do so. But I worry that if they fail, then my name becomes
Mudd at the FWS and I end up stuck with a piece of land that I pay taxes
on and cannot use and likely cannot sell.
Anyone here have friends in high places ? HiHi This is legal extortion.
Best Regards
Dan Schaaf
=================================
K3ZXL www.k3zxl.com
60 Meters www.60metersonline.net
=================================
-----Original Message----- From: Roger (K8RI) on TT
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 6:36 AM
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Towable towers available from the government
On 8/31/2013 6:22 AM, Dan Schaaf wrote:
Substantive BS !
Sure beats the form letters I get from my senator (At least he's not
going to run again..he says.) that could be applied to anything that
says only, I'll keep your views in mind without referring to any thing.
Some one apparently wrote this one.
73
Roger (K8RI)
Best Regards
Dan Schaaf
=================================
K3ZXL www.k3zxl.com
60 Meters www.60metersonline.net
=================================
-----Original Message----- From: Pete Smith N4ZR Sent: Saturday, August
31, 2013 5:57 AM To: towertalk@contesting.com Subject: Re: [TowerTalk]
Towable towers available from the government
Heck, that's a lot more substantive than the sort of BS I get when I
write my Congressperson.
73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
http://reversebeacon.net,
blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
For spots, please go to your favorite
ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.
On 8/30/2013 6:29 PM, Jon Pearl - W4ABC wrote:
...and here's the *answer* that I received, today:
August 30, 2013
Thank you for letting me know of your concerns regarding the way in
which the Department of Defense (DOD) disposes of certain surplus assets
by auctioning them to the public. As the Chairman of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on National Defense, you can be sure that I share your
interest in this regard and appreciate knowing your thoughts.
The Defense Logistics Agency(DLA)Dispositions Services is charged with
disposing ofthe U.S. military'sexcess property. According to the DOD,
the excess property "is first offered for reutilization within the
Department of Defense , transfer to other federal agencies, or donation
to state and local governments andother qualified organizations." In
2008, $2.2 billion worth of property was reutilized.DLA Disposition
Services maintains a Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO)to coordinate
transfers to state, local, and federal; more than 11,500 agencies in all
50 states participate in this program. In 2011, over $500 million worth
of equipment was transferred to law enforcement agencies. Property that
has not been transferred or donated can be made available for purchase
by the public. Of course, assets with military characteristics must be
demilitarized prior to being made available to the public.
In an effort to be of all possible assistance to you, I have taken the
liberty of contacting Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, to share with
him your thoughts. The Secretary has assured me that your views will be
given serious consideration. This is a matter under careful scrutiny by
the Congress and you can be sure that I will continue to monitor any new
developments that occur.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding this matter
of mutual concern. It is my hope that you will continue to keep me
apprised of your interest in legislative issues important to you.
With best wishes and personal regards, I am
Bill Young
Member of Congress
On 8/14/2013 7:24 PM, Jon Pearl - W4ABC wrote:
I saw this ad, earlier this month.
I sent a letter to my Congressman asking how it was this didn't somehow
qualify as waste, fraud or abuse of our wallets?
73,
Jon Pearl - W4ABC
www.w4abc.com
On 8/14/2013 6:50 PM, Mickey Baker wrote:
Careful - this appears to be 198,000 pounds of scrap, now selling at
$45
per pound, about $9M dollars, probably close to what the government
paid
for it.
It looks like a better deal... but that's the way I read it.
73,
Mickey N4MB
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|