Eminent Domain for Private Use Taking in Madison!!!

[CNHT]

Come support Sam Bourne in his continued fight for private property rights in Madison, NH.
He is going again to court at the end of October (see www.nhlibertycalendar.org if you would like to support him) to stop the town from claiming the right to run snowmobile trails right across his private property for the benefit of hotel owners and ATV clubs.

The trial date is October 30-31 and November 1-2 of 2006 at the Carroll County Superior Court.

The town's expert road study committee leader Robert King, has admitted at a deposition, that he personally hand drew in the missing roads on the only map they used to determine the location of alleged Class, VI roads in Madison. (FRAUD!).

The battle in far from over.

It's been four years of abuse, and at a HUGE expense, because of political abuse of power. Will the Judge make things right? Or will he condone fraud?

See you there!

Go to http://www.cnht.org/ and click on the first news item and it will take you to the place where his outrageous story is posted under "Insider News".

[d_goddard]

Hopefully by then the good people of NH will have ratified CACR 30, and this will be moot.
I'll be doing everything possible, when the time draws near, to get people to vote "yes" on CACR 30... LTEs... roadside outreach... signs... web postings... maybe even newspaper ads!

[Ruger Mason]

Hopefully by then the good people of NH will have ratified CACR 30, and this will be moot.
I'll be doing everything possible, when the time draws near, to get people to vote "yes" on CACR 30... LTEs... roadside outreach... signs... web postings... maybe even newspaper ads!

CACR 30 will not solve this problem. Snowmobile trails are no different than highways or local streets; roads of any kind benefit private parties, but as long as the town continues to own the trails and allow public access, it will not fall awry of CACR 30:

[Art.] 12-a [Power to Take Property Limited.] No part of a person's property shall be taken by eminent domain and transferred, directly or indirectly, to another person if the taking is for the purpose of private development or other private use of the property.?

[d_goddard]

CACR 30 will not solve this problem. Snowmobile trails are no different than highways or local streets; roads of any kind benefit private parties, but as long as the town continues to own the trails and allow public access, it will not fall awry of CACR 30

My bad. I read "private" in CNHT's headline, and assumed that's what this was.
Careful, Jane!

[CNHT]

CACR 30 will not solve this problem. Snowmobile trails are no different than highways or local streets; roads of any kind benefit private parties, but as long as the town continues to own the trails and allow public access, it will not fall awry of CACR 30

My bad. I read "private" in CNHT's headline, and assumed that's what this was.
Careful, Jane!

WHAT? Careful my butt. This is a question of the town trying to seize someone's PRIVATE, yes I said PRIVATE property so they can put ATV trails on them....where no roads existed before.

You read it right Denis! The town does NOT nor has ever owned this property!  There were NEVER any roads there. The words 'continues to own' does NOT APPLY.

Ruger is WRONG. This is eminent domain at its worst.

You are not bad. You read this right.... Ruger needs to read the whole posting at www.cnnt.org/calendar The people who want ATV trails are a motel owner and an ATV club. I'd say that was private.

What would stop me then from wanting to do this to YOUR land if it were up in a nice area, 6 feet from YOUR front door? Do you know Sam Bourne? Get a clue will you?
CNHT has followed the case since the beginning as they make it their business to do this. Ruger is not likely familiar with CNHT and what they do.

[Minsk]

That's an ugly one, because unless I'm misreading things it really does look like the intended "road" would be arguably "public", but specifically for the benefit of a few private organizations. So I'd say that it is emminent domain at its second-worst, compounded with the sort of inexcusable abuse of power that makes me really dislike many small town politicos. These parasites should be convicted of at least fraud for the fictional road and (something like) theft under color of authority. Unfortunately, you know well there's enough bribes, kickbacks and conflicts of interest in that situation to sink a battleship.

And for all that's holy, don't go pro se unless you just want to lose every court case. The system is *designed* to destroy people that do that. Egad...

<edit re="below">Uhm, Jane, I thought I was agreeing with you... (second-worst because in some other states they could run a completely private road through his front yard and require he helicoptor out)</edit>

[CNHT]

That's an ugly one, because unless I'm misreading things it really does look like the intended "road" would be arguably "public", but specifically for the benefit of a few private organizations. So I'd say that it is emminent domain at its second-worst, compounded with the sort of inexcusable abuse of power that makes me really dislike many small town politicos. These parasites should be convicted of at least fraud for the fictional road and (something like) theft under color of authority. Unfortunately, you know well there's enough bribes, kickbacks and conflicts of interest in that situation to sink a battleship.

And for all that's holy, don't go pro se unless you just want to lose every court case. The system is *designed* to destroy people that do that. Egad...

NOTE ADDED: This is not just some story that was picked up from the  news. CNHT has been working with Sam for a year now. There are NO roads of any kind on Sam's property and the maps show that fact since the 1700's. The town does NOT own land on Sam's private property as one person suggested on this forum, a person who has no idea the breadth and scope of what CNHT does. The town wants to create roads there however by eminent domain. Please read the full article before you go warning me of being 'careful'.

[Ruger Mason]

WHAT? Careful my butt. This is a question of the town trying to seize someone's PRIVATE, yes I said PRIVATE property so they can put ATV trails on them....where no roads existed before.

You read it right Denis! The town does NOT nor has ever owned this property!  There were NEVER any roads there. The words 'continues to own' does NOT APPLY.

Ruger is WRONG. This is eminent domain at its worst.

You are not bad. You read this right.... Ruger needs to read the whole posting at www.cnnt.org/calendar The people who want ATV trails are a motel owner and an ATV club. I'd say that was private.

There seems to be a misunderstanding.  I am not justifying their taking the land.  It is clearly wrong and it is clearly eminent domain abuse.  Hotel owners and ATV clubs may well have lobbied like hell for the trails.  The trails are surely for the benefit of these groups at the expense of the private property owner and the non-ATV-riding and non-hotel-owning general public.

My point was that CACR 30 will not protect against this kind of taking.  If the town had intended to take the land and transfer it to the hotel owners or ATV clubs, then it would apply.  But if the town takes it and keeps ownership and allows the general public to use the trails, CACR 30 will NOT apply.  Any shenanigans, backroom deals or criminal acts on the part of town officials leading up to the taking are irrelevent to the question of CACR 30.

I wish Mr. Bourne and CNHT the best of luck in preventing this taking from happening.

[CNHT]

WHAT? Careful my butt. This is a question of the town trying to seize someone's PRIVATE, yes I said PRIVATE property so they can put ATV trails on them....where no roads existed before.

You read it right Denis! The town does NOT nor has ever owned this property!  There were NEVER any roads there. The words 'continues to own' does NOT APPLY.

Ruger is WRONG. This is eminent domain at its worst.

You are not bad. You read this right.... Ruger needs to read the whole posting at www.cnnt.org/calendar The people who want ATV trails are a motel owner and an ATV club. I'd say that was private.

There seems to be a misunderstanding.  I am not justifying their taking the land.  It is clearly wrong and it is clearly eminent domain abuse.  Hotel owners and ATV clubs may well have lobbied like hell for the trails.  The trails are surely for the benefit of these groups at the expense of the private property owner and the non-ATV-riding and non-hotel-owning general public.

Um there was no lobbying. They drew roads in on maps that did not exist...clearly fraudulent.

My point was that CACR 30 will not protect against this kind of taking.  If the town had intended to take the land and transfer it to the hotel owners or ATV clubs, then it would apply. 

Well that is exactly what is happening. So there you go. Clearly illegal.

But if the town takes it and keeps ownership and allows the general public to use the trails, CACR 30 will NOT apply.  Any shenanigans, backroom deals or criminal acts on the part of town officials leading up to the taking are irrelevent to the question of CACR 30.

I wish Mr. Bourne and CNHT the best of luck in preventing this taking from happening.

Wrong: They cannot just come and take your property, out in the wilderness, and make it so the public can stomp all over it within 6 feet of your front door! If we allow this, we may as well give everything we own to the gov't. What is wrong with you????

[lildog]

Not that it makes it right but is the town at least paying him for the land?

Also, are they actually taking it or are they making a right of way across it?  If it is still technically his land to do with what he wants, if I were him I'd be putting some large boulders in different spots blocking the "trail".

[CNHT]

Not that it makes it right but is the town at least paying him for the land?

Also, are they actually taking it or are they making a right of way across it?  If it is still technically his land to do with what he wants, if I were him I'd be putting some large boulders in different spots blocking the "trail".

The town is not taking it, but they are trying to create roads where none exist so that a MOTEL OWNER and ATV CLUB, both private parties, can USE IT. The ATVs would go across his front yard within 6 feet of his front door, certainly a nuisance he should not have to put up with in ANY case.

The town still has no right to make a public park or museum out of your home..remember the Souter case? To turn his house into a hotel would have been private use and to make it into a museum would be PUBLIC use and that is strictly prohibited as you saw, it did not fly.

[Ruger Mason]

Wrong: They cannot just come and take your property, out in the wilderness, and make it so the public can stomp all over it within 6 feet of your front door! If we allow this, we may as well give everything we own to the gov't. What is wrong with you????

Why not?  That's exactly what eminent domain is.  If the city wanted to take my front lawn and build a public parking lot so people can park all over it right up to my doorstep, they have the legal authority (but certainly not the moral authority) to do so.

[CNHT]

Wrong: They cannot just come and take your property, out in the wilderness, and make it so the public can stomp all over it within 6 feet of your front door! If we allow this, we may as well give everything we own to the gov't. What is wrong with you????

Why not?  That's exactly what eminent domain is.  If the city wanted to take my front lawn and build a public parking lot so people can park all over it right up to my doorstep, they have the legal authority (but certainly not the moral authority) to do so.

I doubt they would get much support for it because they really do NOT have the legal authority. It could be used to retaliate for others things. (Where I live the town loves to do that to people and has done things to groups in retaliation for losing elections). I would hope you'd be standing outside and refusing to move when the bulldozers arrived. In this case it's for private use.

[Ruger Mason]

I doubt they would get much support for it because they really do NOT have the legal authority. It could be used to retaliate for others things. (Where I live the town loves to do that to people and has done things to groups in retaliation for losing elections).

I guess it depends on what some judge constitutes "public" vs. "private" use.  For example, if a town wanted to build a road, how many abutters and users must it have before it is considered "public"?  One?  Three?  One hundred?  What is a user?  Are the users the abutting businesses, or do the users also include all their customers?  Are those customers considered "the public?" The Town of Madison will likely argue that the trails are for public use, that they benefit the public at large because they are publically accessible, and presumably "hundreds" of people in the town will use them.  Is that public or private?  One could argue that it disproportionately benefits hotel operators and ATV clubs, and so it is private.  What is the standard?  That's a rhetorical question really.  A judge will decide that.  I'd bet there is case law on this if not in New Hampshire, certainly in other states.  I did some research about a year ago, and could find no good cases in New Hampshire about constituted public vs. private use, except the one in Manchester in which the city tried to take someone's land for the purpose of selling it to a private developer, but was prevented from doing so by the Supreme Court (can't remember the case name -- I think this is the one you alluded to in the Souter situation in Weare).

I would hope you'd be standing outside and refusing to move when the bulldozers arrived. In this case it's for private use.

Again a rhetorical question:  what if a busy shop across the street from my house, which had a parking shortage had lobbied City Hall for the taking?  And my neighbors all agreed with the taking because it would pull cars off the neighborhood streets?  Would the "public" parking lot be considered by the courts to be primarily for the benefit of the shop owner, and thus a "private" use?  Unfortunately, CACR 30 does not answer this question for us, but merely affirms the Manchester case I mentioned above.

And of course I would resist them taking my land every way I know how.  It would be quite a spectacle.

[Dave Ridley]

could use a list of perpetrators and their contact info.  Would like to at least make some calls and ask some questions, then post their answers here.