U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-09-2012, 09:42 AM
 
Location: Jewel Lake (Sagle) Idaho
34,676 posts, read 20,971,819 times
Reputation: 21033

Advertisements

Quote:
The main question before the court is whether the Constitution's Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process permits pre-enforcement judicial review of an EPA administrative compliance order pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U. S. C. ¤ 704).
Most would argue the Fifth Amendment's Due Process clause assures them of this very protection: "No person shall be ... deprived life, liberty or property, without due process of law. ..."
Here's the background to the case: In 2005, Chantell and Michael Sackett purchased less than two-thirds of an acre of land near Priest Lake in northern Idaho for the modest sum of $23,000. They were nearby small-business owners and wanted to become homeowners. They planned to build a three-bedroom home.
The property was located in a platted residential subdivision with water and sewer hookups and was bordered on either side by existing homes. There were community roads in both the front and back of the property.
The couple were savvy enough to have conducted regulatory due diligence before they purchased the land. The previous owner informed them he had consulted the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding any building restrictions. There were none.
After buying the property, the Sacketts applied for and received all of the pertinent local permits to build a residential dwelling as local zoning ordinances permit. In the spring of 2007, they began preparing the lot for construction.
While gravel was being laid in preparation for pouring the concrete foundation, the work was interrupted by three EPA agents who told the Sacketts the property was a federally protected "wetlands." They were served with a compliance order to immediately restore the property to its prior condition.
It would cost $27,000 to remove the just-laid gravel, which was more than the property's purchase price. Yet, the EPA compliance order made further demands.
The Sacketts were ordered to plant new vegetation. The EPA specified what to plant ("native scrub-shrub, broad-leaved deciduous wetlands plants and seeded with native herbaceous plants") and how to plant ("approximately 10 feet apart").
Additionally, they were ordered to fence the property, monitor plant growth for three growing seasons and to permit unfettered access to the property by EPA agents.
Most significantly, the compliance order enjoined the Sacketts from the only permissible and practical use of the residential lot.
The EPA's order not only shattered their homeowner dreams but, it also saddled the couple with exorbitant financial costs. They were hit with astronomical daily fines of $37,500 if they failed to comply with the order. The EPA has levied more than $40 million in fines against the Sacketts.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: Sunday Reflection: Court to hear case on abuses by EPA bureaucrats | The Examiner | Columnists | Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2012/01/sunday-reflection-court-hear-case-abuses-epa-bureaucrats/2069096#ixzz1iya1J7tz - broken link)

Just one of many cases where the federal governmenet unleashes it's power against private individuals. The case is about the ability to question the EPAs power and for individuals to get their "day in court" concerning EPA decisions, before they are assessed penalties. $40 million in fines...nothing like abuse of power over someone questioning the unrestricted authority of the federal government.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-09-2012, 09:46 AM
 
Location: Jewel Lake (Sagle) Idaho
34,676 posts, read 20,971,819 times
Reputation: 21033
More:

Quote:
The EPA's stance forced their hand. The Sacketts filed a federal lawsuit challenging the EPA's compliance order, claiming the EPA had no jurisdiction over their property and the compliance order violated their due process rights.
The EPA argued the Sacketts did not have the right to judicial review of the agency's orders as this would "disserve" the interest of the government. The EPA argued the Sacketts must first comply with the compliance order and return the property to the conditions dictated by the agency; apply for a wetlands development permit; be denied that permit; and only then could they seek judicial relief. Such a burdensome process often takes several years at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: Sunday Reflection: Court to hear case on abuses by EPA bureaucrats | The Examiner | Columnists | Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2012/01/sunday-reflection-court-hear-case-abuses-epa-bureaucrats/2069096#ixzz1iybO7Z7u - broken link)

Reminds me of Cool Hand Luke...."you will respect my authoty"
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2012, 09:50 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 9,366,512 times
Reputation: 2527
I am afraid we are stuck with the EPA untill congress dissolves it
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2012, 09:55 AM
 
29,409 posts, read 19,993,634 times
Reputation: 5445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
Read more at the Washington Examiner: Sunday Reflection: Court to hear case on abuses by EPA bureaucrats | The Examiner | Columnists | Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2012/01/sunday-reflection-court-hear-case-abuses-epa-bureaucrats/2069096#ixzz1iya1J7tz - broken link)

Just one of many cases where the federal governmenet unleashes it's power against private individuals. The case is about the ability to question the EPAs power and for individuals to get their "day in court" concerning EPA decisions, before they are assessed penalties. $40 million in fines...nothing like abuse of power over someone questioning the unrestricted authority of the federal government.
Day in court is usually years down the road. Welcome to the new Agenda 21 enforcement police..........or as we know them the EPA.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2012, 10:11 AM
 
3,457 posts, read 3,300,031 times
Reputation: 1532
This is why you don't fill in wetlands.

Quote:
The couple were savvy enough to have conducted regulatory due diligence before they purchased the land. The previous owner informed them he had consulted the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding any building restrictions. There were none.
Relying on the previous property owner's word is not performing "due diligence."
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2012, 10:22 AM
 
14,295 posts, read 8,725,768 times
Reputation: 4249
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
I am afraid we are stuck with the EPA untill congress dissolves it
Congress needs to defund them first. Hell, about half of the money they get is used as billions in grants that they toss around like Santy Claus, and many of them are given away to their environmental kooks and cronies.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2012, 10:24 AM
 
14,295 posts, read 8,725,768 times
Reputation: 4249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
This is why you don't fill in wetlands.



Relying on the previous property owner's word is not performing "due diligence."
A third of an acre is not worth the federal government's effort, and certainly not worth destroying people's lives and $40 million in fines.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2012, 10:25 AM
 
29,409 posts, read 19,993,634 times
Reputation: 5445
It is when the government doesn't want people in those acres and instead wants em in their population centers where they are easier to control.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2012, 10:39 AM
 
3,457 posts, read 3,300,031 times
Reputation: 1532
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
A third of an acre is not worth the federal government's effort, and certainly not worth destroying people's lives and $40 million in fines.
It's not the 2/3 of an acre that the laws are intended to protect, it is the lake.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2012, 10:41 AM
 
Location: NC
6,032 posts, read 8,203,143 times
Reputation: 6366
These fines are not enforceable and are idiotic. This is a residential subdivision where houses have already been built. Are the other homeowners facing fines?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:02 PM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top