Latest news with #propertyrights
Gizmodo
2 days ago
- Business
- Gizmodo
SpaceX's Company Town May Force Its Residents to Leave Their Homes
It's been less than a month since Elon Musk got his dream town in Boca Chica, Texas, and Starbase is already a nuisance. The SpaceX town has issued a memo to residents about a new zoning ordinance and updated citywide map that could impact how they use their property. Starbase, Texas, sent the memo to residents who own property within a 'mixed-use district' that will allow for 'residential, office, retail, and small-scale service uses,' according to a copy of the memo obtained by CNBC. The company town is set to hold a hearing on June 23 at city hall to allow for public comment on its new zoning plan 'THAT WILL DETERMINE WHETHER YOU MAY LOSE THE RIGHT TO CONTINUE USING YOUR PROPERTY FOR ITS CURRENT USE,' the memo read in all caps. It's not exactly clear what this terse, oddly worded warning means, or if it implies that certain residents of Starbase could get kicked out of their homes. If someone loses the right to use their residence as they do now, does that mean they can't even sleep there? The memo mentions that the so-called mixed-use district will be for residential use, as well as office and retail, so perhaps some of the homes will have to be transformed into something else. Either way, residents were ominously warned to attend the upcoming hearing to find out their fate. Earlier in May, residents voted in favor of turning Starbase into its own city. The city spans about 1.6 square miles (4.1 square kilometers) and is home to roughly 500 nearby residents, the majority of whom are SpaceX employees and contractors. SpaceX began buying land in the area in 2012 to set up shop for its rocket business. The company has expanded its presence with housing and other facilities, and even announced tentative plans to open a $15 million shopping center. Musk first pitched the idea of turning Starbase into its own city in 2021, a long-held dream that could grant SpaceX the right to build more facilities and change the surrounding landscape. The company is currently trying to gain control of public beach closures and the closing down of roads in Boca Chica for rocket launches, ground testing, or other related activities during the week. The company's frequent rocket launches have already been disruptive to the local community and the surrounding wildlife. Now that Starbase is a city, it may increase the company's municipal authority and allow it to overstep regulatory red tape designed to protect the environment. SpaceX is facing fines of almost $150,000 from the Environmental Protection Agency for allegedly illegally dumping pollutants into a Texas waterway without a permit. SpaceX, however, claims otherwise. 'Our goal is to ensure that the zoning plan reflects the City's vision for balanced growth, protecting critical economic drivers, ensuring public safety, and preserving green spaces,' Starbase wrote in the memo to its residents. The company has invested in the area by generating jobs and attracting space tourists to watch its rockets lift off to space, but its increased influence does come at a price.
BBC News
3 days ago
- Business
- BBC News
South Africa's land law explained – and why it so inflames Donald Trump
South Africa's President Cyril Ramaphosa is at the centre of a political firestorm after he approved a law that gives the state the power to expropriate some privately owned land without compensation for law, which is yet to be implemented, has drawn the ire of US President Donald Trump, who sees it as discriminating against white farmers. Centre-right political parties and lobby groups in South Africa have also opposed it, saying they will challenge the Expropriation Act – as the law is named – in court on the grounds that it threatens property government says the law provides for compensation to be paid in the vast majority of cases – and the changes are needed to increase black ownership of private farmland is still owned by white people. When Nelson Mandela came to power more than 30 years ago, ending the racist system of apartheid, it was promised that this would be rectified through a willing-buyer, willing-seller land reform programme – but critics say this has proved too slow and too costly. So what exactly can be expropriated without compensation? In rare circumstances it would be land that was needed for the "public interest", legal experts told the to South African law firm Werksmans Attorneys, this suggested it would mainly, or perhaps only, happen in relation to the land reform it could also be used to access natural resources such as minerals and water, the firm added, in an opinion written by its experts in the field, Bulelwa Mabasa and Thomas and Karberg told the BBC that in their view, productive agricultural land could not be expropriated without said any expropriation without compensation – known as EWC – could take place only in a few circumstances:For example, when an owner was not using the land and was holding it for "speculative purposes"Or when an owner "abandoned the land by failing to exercise control over it despite being reasonably capable of doing so". Owners would probably still get compensation for the buildings on the land and for the natural resources, the lawyers and Karberg added that EWC was "not aimed at rural land or farmland specifically, and could include land in urban areas".However, in cases where compensation is paid, the rules are set to change, with owners likely to get less money. Why will less money be paid in compensation? The plan is for owners to receive "just-and-equitable" compensation – a departure from the higher "market value" they have been getting up to now, Mabasa and Karberg government had been paying market-value compensation despite the fact that this was "at odds" with the constitution, adopted after white-minority rule ended in 1994, they lawyers said that all expropriations had "extensive procedural fairness requirements", including the owner's right to go to court if they were not move away from market-value compensation will also apply to land expropriated for a "public purpose" – like building state schools or has not been a major point of controversy, possibly because it is "hardly a novel concept" – a point made by JURISTnews, a legal website run by law students from around the world. "The US Constitution, for instance, provides that the government can seize private property for public use so long as 'just compensation' is provided," it added. Will it make it easier for the government to acquire land? The government hopes so. University of Western Cape land expert Prof Ruth Hall told the BBC that more than 80,000 land claims remain the eastern regions of South Africa, many black people work on farms for free – in exchange they are allowed to live there and keep their livestock on a portion of the owners' land, she government wants to transfer ownership of this land to the workers, and it was "unfair" to expect it to pay the market value, Prof Hall the last three decades, the government has used existing powers to expropriate property–- with less than market-value compensation – in fewer than 20 cases, she new law was aimed at making it easier and cheaper to restore land to black people who were "dispossessed" of it during white-minority rule or were forced to be "long-term tenants" as they could not own land, Prof Hall added."It's a bargaining chip," she said. But she doubts that the government will press ahead with implementing the law in the foreseeable future as the "political cost" has become too high. The academic was referring to the fact that Trump has opposed the law, saying it discriminates against white farmers and their land was being "seized" – a charge the government February, Trump cut aid to South Africa, and in April he announced a 30% tariff on South African goods and agricultural products, although this was later paused for 90 was followed by last month's infamous Oval Office showdown when Trump ambushed Ramaphosa with a video and printouts of stories alleging white people were being persecuted – much of his dossier has been Trump's Oval Office confrontation with Ramaphosa What has been the reaction in South Africa? Like Trump, the second-biggest party in Ramaphosa's coalition government, the Democratic Alliance (DA), is opposed to the legislation. In a statement on 26 May, the party said that its top leadership body had rejected the notion of "nil compensation". However, it has agreed with the concept of just-and-equitable compensation rather than market-value compensation, adding it should be "adjudicated by a court of law".Surprisingly, Jaco Kleynhans of the Solidarity Movement, an influential Afrikaner lobby group, said that while the new law could "destroy" some businesses and he was opposed to it, he did not believe it would lead to the "large-scale expropriation of farmland"."I don't see within the wording of this text that that will happen," he said in a recent panel discussion at an agricultural exhibition held in South Africa's Free State province – where a large number of conservative Afrikaner farmers South African Property Owners Association said it was "irrational" to give "nil compensation" to an owner who held land for speculative purposes. "There are many landowners whose sole purpose of business is to speculate in land. They do not get the land for free and they have significant holding costs," the association said, adding it had no doubt the law would be "abundantly tested" in the courts. Mabasa and Karberg said one view was that the concept of EWC was a "legal absurdity" because "intrinsic in the legal definition of expropriation, is a requirement for compensation to be paid".However, the lawyers pointed out the alternative view was that South Africa's constitution "implicitly recognises that it would in some circumstances be just and equitable for compensation to be nil". What does the government say? South Africa's Public Works Minister Dean Macpherson has defended the legislation, breaking ranks with his party, the fact he is in charge of the new legalisation and, on a discussion panel, he explained that while he had some concerns about the law, it was a "dramatic improvement" on the previous Expropriation Act, with greater safeguards for land-owners. He said the law could also help end extortionist demands on the state, and in some cases "nil compensation" could be gave as an example the problems being faced by the state-owned power utility plans to roll out a transmission network over about 4,500km (28,000 miles) of land to boost electricity supplies to end the power crisis in the of the roll-out, some individuals colluded with Eskom officials to buy land for 1m rand ($56,000; £41,000), and then demanded R20m for it, he said. "Is it just and equitable to give them what they want? I don't think that's in the interest of the broader community or the state," Macpherson another example, Macpherson said that some of South Africa's inner cities were in a "disastrous" condition. After owners left, buildings were "over-run" and "hijacked" for illegal occupation. The cost to the state to rebuild them could exceed their value, and in such cases the courts could rule that an owner qualified for "nil compensation", he said. "Nil is a form of compensation," Macpherson added, while ruling it out for mayor Dada Morero told South Africa's Mail & Guardian newspaper that he wanted to use the buildings for the "public good", like accommodating around 300,000 people on the housing waiting added the owners of nearly 100 buildings could not be located. "They have abandoned the buildings," he said, adding some of the owners were from the UK and Mabasa and Karberg told the BBC that in such cases compensation would probably still have to be paid for the buildings, though not the the state could not locate the owners, it "must deposit the compensation with the Master of the High Court" in case they returned or could be traced later, they said. What next? The law is in limbo, as Ramaphosa – about four months after giving his assent to it – has still not set a date for its implementation. Nor is he likely to do so anytime soon, as he would not want to further antagonise Trump while South Africa was trying to negotiate a trade deal with the US. And on the domestic front, the DA is spearheading opposition to the legislation. It said it wanted a "judicial review" of it, while at the same time it was pressing ahead with court action to challenge the law's constitutionality. The DA's tough line is in contrast with that of Macpherson, who, a few weeks ago, warned that if the law was struck down in its entirety: "I don't know what's going to come after that."In politics, sometimes you must be careful what you wish for because often you can get it," he comments highlight the deep fissures in South African politics, with some parties, such as Julius Malema's Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), believing that the legislation did not go far enough to tackle racial inequality in land land such an emotive issue, there is no easy solution to the dispute – and it is likely to continue to cause tensions within South Africa, as well as with the US president. You may also be interested in: Rebuked by Trump but praised at home: How Ramaphosa might gain from US showdownIs there a genocide of white South Africans as Trump claims?South Africans' anger over land set to explode Go to for more news from the African us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Unpacking the South African land law that so inflames Trump
South Africa's President Cyril Ramaphosa is at the centre of a political firestorm after he approved a law that gives the state the power to expropriate some privately owned land without compensation for owners. The law, which is yet to be implemented, has drawn the ire of US President Donald Trump, who sees it as discriminating against white farmers. Centre-right political parties and lobby groups in South Africa have also opposed it, saying they will challenge the Expropriation Act – as the law is named – in court on the grounds that it threatens property rights. Ramaphosa's government says the law provides for compensation to be paid in the vast majority of cases – and the changes are needed to increase black ownership of land. Most private farmland is still owned by white people. When Nelson Mandela came to power more than 30 years ago, ending the racist system of apartheid, it was promised that this would be rectified through a willing-buyer, willing-seller land reform programme – but critics say this has proved too slow and too costly. In rare circumstances it would be land that was needed for the "public interest", legal experts told the BBC. According to South African law firm Werksmans Attorneys, this suggested it would mainly, or perhaps only, happen in relation to the land reform programme. Although it could also be used to access natural resources such as minerals and water, the firm added, in an opinion written by its experts in the field, Bulelwa Mabasa and Thomas Karberg. Mabasa and Karberg told the BBC that in their view, productive agricultural land could not be expropriated without compensation. They said any expropriation without compensation – known as EWC – could take place only in a few circumstances: For example, when an owner was not using the land and was holding it for "speculative purposes" Or when an owner "abandoned the land by failing to exercise control over it despite being reasonably capable of doing so". Owners would probably still get compensation for the buildings on the land and for the natural resources, the lawyers said. Mabasa and Karberg added that EWC was "not aimed at rural land or farmland specifically, and could include land in urban areas". However, in cases where compensation is paid, the rules are set to change, with owners likely to get less money. The plan is for owners to receive "just-and-equitable" compensation – a departure from the higher "market value" they have been getting up to now, Mabasa and Karberg said. The government had been paying market-value compensation despite the fact that this was "at odds" with the constitution, adopted after white-minority rule ended in 1994, they added. The lawyers said that all expropriations had "extensive procedural fairness requirements", including the owner's right to go to court if they were not happy. The move away from market-value compensation will also apply to land expropriated for a "public purpose" – like building state schools or railways. This has not been a major point of controversy, possibly because it is "hardly a novel concept" – a point made by JURISTnews, a legal website run by law students from around the world. "The US Constitution, for instance, provides that the government can seize private property for public use so long as 'just compensation' is provided," it added. The government hopes so. University of Western Cape land expert Prof Ruth Hall told the BBC that more than 80,000 land claims remain unsettled. In the eastern regions of South Africa, many black people work on farms for free – in exchange they are allowed to live there and keep their livestock on a portion of the owners' land, she said. The government wants to transfer ownership of this land to the workers, and it was "unfair" to expect it to pay the market value, Prof Hall added. Over the last three decades, the government has used existing powers to expropriate property–- with less than market-value compensation – in fewer than 20 cases, she said. The new law was aimed at making it easier and cheaper to restore land to black people who were "dispossessed" of it during white-minority rule or were forced to be "long-term tenants" as they could not own land, Prof Hall added. "It's a bargaining chip," she said. But she doubts that the government will press ahead with implementing the law in the foreseeable future as the "political cost" has become too high. The academic was referring to the fact that Trump has opposed the law, saying it discriminates against white farmers and their land was being "seized" – a charge the government denies. In February, Trump cut aid to South Africa, and in April he announced a 30% tariff on South African goods and agricultural products, although this was later paused for 90 days. This was followed by last month's infamous Oval Office showdown when Trump ambushed Ramaphosa with a video and printouts of stories alleging white people were being persecuted – much of his dossier has been discredited. Fact-checking Trump's Oval Office confrontation with Ramaphosa Like Trump, the second-biggest party in Ramaphosa's coalition government, the Democratic Alliance (DA), is opposed to the legislation. In a statement on 26 May, the party said that its top leadership body had rejected the notion of "nil compensation". However, it has agreed with the concept of just-and-equitable compensation rather than market-value compensation, adding it should be "adjudicated by a court of law". Surprisingly, Jaco Kleynhans of the Solidarity Movement, an influential Afrikaner lobby group, said that while the new law could "destroy" some businesses and he was opposed to it, he did not believe it would lead to the "large-scale expropriation of farmland". "I don't see within the wording of this text that that will happen," he said in a recent panel discussion at an agricultural exhibition held in South Africa's Free State province – where a large number of conservative Afrikaner farmers live. The South African Property Owners Association said it was "irrational" to give "nil compensation" to an owner who held land for speculative purposes. "There are many landowners whose sole purpose of business is to speculate in land. They do not get the land for free and they have significant holding costs," the association said, adding it had no doubt the law would be "abundantly tested" in the courts. Mabasa and Karberg said one view was that the concept of EWC was a "legal absurdity" because "intrinsic in the legal definition of expropriation, is a requirement for compensation to be paid". However, the lawyers pointed out the alternative view was that South Africa's constitution "implicitly recognises that it would in some circumstances be just and equitable for compensation to be nil". South Africa's Public Works Minister Dean Macpherson has defended the legislation, breaking ranks with his party, the DA. In fact he is in charge of the new legalisation and, on a discussion panel, he explained that while he had some concerns about the law, it was a "dramatic improvement" on the previous Expropriation Act, with greater safeguards for land-owners. He said the law could also help end extortionist demands on the state, and in some cases "nil compensation" could be justified. He gave as an example the problems being faced by the state-owned power utility Eskom. It plans to roll out a transmission network over about 4,500km (28,000 miles) of land to boost electricity supplies to end the power crisis in the country. Ahead of the roll-out, some individuals colluded with Eskom officials to buy land for 1m rand ($56,000; £41,000), and then demanded R20m for it, he said. "Is it just and equitable to give them what they want? I don't think that's in the interest of the broader community or the state," Macpherson said. Giving another example, Macpherson said that some of South Africa's inner cities were in a "disastrous" condition. After owners left, buildings were "over-run" and "hijacked" for illegal occupation. The cost to the state to rebuild them could exceed their value, and in such cases the courts could rule that an owner qualified for "nil compensation", he said. "Nil is a form of compensation," Macpherson added, while ruling it out for farms. Johannesburg mayor Dada Morero told South Africa's Mail & Guardian newspaper that he wanted to use the buildings for the "public good", like accommodating around 300,000 people on the housing waiting list. He added the owners of nearly 100 buildings could not be located. "They have abandoned the buildings," he said, adding some of the owners were from the UK and Germany. But Mabasa and Karberg told the BBC that in such cases compensation would probably still have to be paid for the buildings, though not the land. If the state could not locate the owners, it "must deposit the compensation with the Master of the High Court" in case they returned or could be traced later, they said. The law is in limbo, as Ramaphosa – about four months after giving his assent to it – has still not set a date for its implementation. Nor is he likely to do so anytime soon, as he would not want to further antagonise Trump while South Africa was trying to negotiate a trade deal with the US. And on the domestic front, the DA is spearheading opposition to the legislation. It said it wanted a "judicial review" of it, while at the same time it was pressing ahead with court action to challenge the law's constitutionality. The DA's tough line is in contrast with that of Macpherson, who, a few weeks ago, warned that if the law was struck down in its entirety: "I don't know what's going to come after that. "In politics, sometimes you must be careful what you wish for because often you can get it," he said. His comments highlight the deep fissures in South African politics, with some parties, such as Julius Malema's Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), believing that the legislation did not go far enough to tackle racial inequality in land ownership. With land such an emotive issue, there is no easy solution to the dispute – and it is likely to continue to cause tensions within South Africa, as well as with the US president. Rebuked by Trump but praised at home: How Ramaphosa might gain from US showdown Is there a genocide of white South Africans as Trump claims? South Africans' anger over land set to explode Go to for more news from the African continent. Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica Africa Daily Focus on Africa
Yahoo
25-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
‘You can't displace someone': This Denver couple is suing developers, city over alleged property encroachment
Jorge Cardenas and Griselda Barbosa Martinez from the West Colfax neighborhood of Denver have filed a 50-page lawsuit against the City of Denver, a property developer and a construction company, accusing them of violating the family's rights and threatening their property, reports CBS News Colorado. The couple claims that, due to the construction next door, the alley beside their property was shifted closer to their home, which endangered a retaining wall and several mature trees. Yet, according to the lawsuit, neither the city nor the developers could define the boundary of the alley and no due process was followed. Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can access this $1B private real estate fund (with as little as $10) 'This is our home,' Barbosa Martinez told CBS News Colorado in Spanish. The couple have lived in the house for 20 years and have reconstructed it during that time. As new apartment and townhome developments rose around them, they've turned down multiple unsolicited offers from developers, including one for $180,000 in 2022, even though homes nearby were selling for more than half a million. Later that year, the construction started. When it did, 'they received a letter on their door advising them that in another week, this construction company would be coming onto their property and knocking down all their trees and that the City of Denver had given authorization for it,' Anna Martinez, the couple's attorney, told CBS News Colorado. 'You could never go to your neighbor's house and say, 'Your trees are in my yard, so I'm chopping them down.' But that's essentially what the threat was,' she said, adding that the lawsuit is about basic rights, protecting the couple's home and whether a private company can exercise city authority. 'You can't displace someone from their property. You can't chop down their trees. You can't trespass onto their land if you don't know where the line is,' she said. The city and the developer declined to comment because of the ongoing litigation. The case is awaiting a decision by the courts as to whether it will proceed. 'Technically, any physical feature (from a building extension to landscaping) that crosses the legal boundary line is an encroachment if it's on your property without your permission,' Alexei Morgado, CEO and founder of Lexawise Real Estate Exam Prep, told These features can include such things as fences, tree limbs and structural overhangs. 'Property encroachments, though they might sound like a minor concern, can significantly impact the value of your home,' Indianapolis law firm Katzman & Katzman, P.C. says in a blog. The firm explains that these encroachments can make your home harder to sell — appraisers might lower the value of the home, which can reduce the price you can sell it for. And the legal costs of fighting an encroachment 'can eat into your home's equity.' In most states, you're required to disclose any encroachments to prospective buyers. If it's unknown and discovered during the sales process, it may affect the buyer's ability to get financing and could delay the sale. In the worst case, the neighbor could claim adverse possession, which would grant them title to the encroached area and reduce your property value. Read more: This is how American car dealers use the '4-square method' to make big profits off you — and how you can ensure you pay a fair price for all your vehicle costs If you suspect your neighbor's property is encroaching on yours, the first thing to do is verify that this is, in fact, the case. 'A homeowner who believes that a neighbor has erected a fence, shed, driveway or some other encroaching structure onto their property should first make sure they have a current survey,' Thomas Weiss, real estate litigation attorney at Vishnick McGovern Milizio LLP, told If you got a deed or survey when you bought the home, you can check this. Or, you may be able to find information at the local land record office. However, you may need to commission a professional survey prepared by a licensed surveyor. Many encroachments are unintentional, so a good approach is to start with a calm, friendly conversation. If you're unable to resolve the dispute, send a formal letter notifying the neighbor of the encroachment, providing details and demanding a remedy by a certain date. If this still doesn't bring about a solution, then you may need to consider taking legal action. The laws vary by state so consult a lawyer who specializes in real estate law. Alternatively, you can allow the encroachment to remain through an easement agreement or a revocable license. An easement agreement is a legal agreement that will allow the neighbor to use the portion of your property that is being encroached for a specific purpose and period. A revocable license will allow your neighbor to keep the encroachment, but this permission can be revoked at any time. It differs from an easement because it's much harder to revoke an easement. An easement or revocable license can still hurt your property value because it's a hassle many buyers don't want to deal with. However you choose to deal with an encroachment, it's best to tackle it head-on — and as soon as possible — to save headaches and the potential loss of some of your property in the future. Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says this 7-step plan 'works every single time' to kill debt, get rich in America — and that 'anyone' can do it Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead Robert Kiyosaki warns of a 'Greater Depression' coming to the US — with millions of Americans going poor. But he says these 2 'easy-money' assets will bring in 'great wealth'. How to get in now Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you? This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Legislators listened to the people of Iowa. It's up to Kim Reynolds now.
After three years and four pieces of legislation sent to the Iowa Senate by the Iowa House, on May 12 the chickens came home to roost. The voices of the people were drowned out no more, and thanks to 11 brave senators who refused to buckle, a vote was forced on legislation to protect the landowners of Iowa against the use of eminent domain to seize their property to build Summit Carbon Solutions' CO2 pipeline. The pipeline can be built with voluntary easements, but instead, to save money, Summit has chosen to use the heavy hand of government power through eminent domain to seize the land of others. I have been told that many who refused to sign easements were treated disrespectfully. This project in the opinion of many legal scholars does not meet the Iowa constitutional requirement for being a public use project and runs afoul of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. More: What is eminent domain? What to know about Iowa's bill limiting it for carbon pipelines Property rights are in our DNA as Americans. It is one of the reasons we fought a revolution, and as George Washington reminded us, 'Freedom and property rights are inseparable. You can't have one without the other.' With our state motto being 'Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain,' it should have come as no surprise that the citizens of Iowa would fight to protect their fundamental right of private property. So, here we are today. The House sent four pieces of legislation to the Senate over a three-year period to protect landowners. Senate leadership refused to bring them to the floor for a vote. This year we sent them two strong bills to uphold the Constitutional rights of landowners. One of them they ignored, and Sen. Mike Bousselot attempted to destroy the other one with a poison pill amendment that did nothing to protect property owners impacted by the Summit CO2 pipeline. Thanks to 11 brave Republican senators who refused to pass budgets until the voices of the people were heard, House File 639 came to the floor for a vote in the Senate. As a Republican, I was saddened to see how some Republican senators conducted themselves on the floor, attacking the freedom fighters who insisted that the voices of the people be heard, and the Constitution be upheld. House File 639 was attacked as being written by environmental extremists, a ridiculous argument. The bill was written by conservative Republicans, including myself. We are not environmental extremists; we support the concept that we should Drill, Baby, Drill, but we also believe in the Constitution and insist that its principles and protections be honored. More: How Iowa lawmakers voted on a bill limiting eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines House File 639 was also attacked as being a terrible bill. Yet, those attacking it offered no alternatives that truly protected landowners. Those attacking it were sent four pieces of legislation over a three-year period, and they did nothing. Their claim of being for landowner rights was betrayed by their actions. In the spirit of GOP Party Chair Jeff Kaufmann, who in 2006 wrote eminent domain legislation to protect landowners and spearheaded the successful effort to override Gov. Tom Vilsack's veto of it, and in keeping with the requirements of the Iowa Constitution and the Republican Party of Iowa Platform, House File 639 passed both chambers with the majority of elected Republicans in support. In contrast to past efforts in which Democrats opposed eminent domain protections, this time many of them supported the legislation. House File 639 passed with bipartisan support. It passed by a vote of 85 to 10 in the House and 27 to 22 in the Senate. The people, through their elected representatives, have spoken. Lobbyists supporting renewable fuels believe the pipeline must be built to support ethanol. This is in fact an economic development argument, not an argument that supports the constitutional public use requirement. The pipeline can be built with voluntary easements, and the fact that some believe it to be essential for the future of ethanol does not mean we toss the Constitution aside. We must not do that because that is not who we are. We can support economic development, we can support agriculture, while also supporting the constitutional rights of my constituents in Shelby County and across our amazing state. For over three years I have watched landowners fight for their private property rights, and in fighting for these rights, they were fighting for the rights of all of us. They have lived with uncertainty, threats, fear, exhaustion, and economic hardship in having to hire attorneys and fight for the legacy of their land and the future of their children. I have seen the frustration in their eyes with their government when year after year their voices were ignored in the Senate as elected officials hid behind process. Some elected officials had to be reminded that government exists in our great country not to restrain the people, but rather to constrain itself, because the power in the United States of America and the state of Iowa must always belong to the people. Thanks to the steadfast effort of House Republicans, the incredible efforts of landowners, and 11 brave senators, the voices of the people have been heard, and they reverberate in House File 639. It only remains for the governor to recognize the will of the people and their constitutional rights and sign this legislation as quickly as possible. I look forward to our governor signing this legislation, cementing her legacy as a leader who stands for freedom and the Constitution, as she has done since she became our governor. State Rep. Steve Holt of Denison represents Iowa House District 12. This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: On eminent domain for carbon pipelines, Iowans were heard | Opinion
