Buy the Farm Briefs to Supreme Court

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on December 3, 2012 @ 9:23 am

gildeawrightChief Justice Gildea and new Justice Wright (can’t find full photo of court – must not have it posted yet).

Buy the Farm is working its way through the Supreme Court.  Petitioners briefs have been filed, and Amici (?) (two Amicus) as well.  Here are the briefs I’ve received thus far.

Parties:

Hanson Stich Brief to MN Supreme Court

Pudas Enos Brief to MN Supreme Court

Amicus Curiae:

No CapX 2020, United Citizens Action Network, St. Paul’s Lutheran School and Church and Cannon Falls Landowners Brief

Minnesota Eminent Domain Institute Brief

I particularly liked the MEDI Brief’s treatment of “remedial” statutes and intent.  RIGHT ON!!!

Buy the Farm at Supreme Court – Xcel/NSP objects!

Filed under:Buy the Farm — posted by admin on October 1, 2012 @ 2:10 pm

(be sure to check out the Scott County Order at the bottom of the page)

Northern States Power (Now it’s NSP, it’s been Xcel in the dockets at the PUC, why the difference?) objects to landowners taking the recent Appellate decision on Buy the Farm to the Supreme Court:

Northern States Power’s Opposition to Review

As I’ve reported before, there was a decision at the Minnesota Court of Appeals that is very detrimental to landowners exercising the “Buy the Farm” option under Minn. Stat. 216E.12, Subd. 4, where the Appellate Court tossed out District Court decisions that those electing Buy the Farm were due “minimum compensation” and “relocation compensation” under Minnesota’s Ch. 117, governing condemnation in Minnesota.

Buy the Farm – NSP v. Aleckson, Pudas, Hanson, et al.

The Dissent was dead on, here’s a snippet:

And summing it up:

Here’s the District Court decision that the Appellate Court turned around:

Stearns County Order 73-CV-10-10828

Wright County Order – 86-CV-10-7551

Landowners are, of course, outraged that this compensation is even at issue, much less being denied by the Appellate Court, so it’s off to the Supreme Court.  Here are the Petitions to the Supreme Court, still pending:

Northern States Power v. Roger Aleckson, et al. – Hanson and Stich Petition

Northern States Power v. Aleckson, et al. – Enos and Pudas Petition

The District Courts are clearly more understanding to what it means for landowners to have the CapX 2020 transmission project across their land, and what it means to make the decision to pick up and leave.

Yes, folks, the rumors are true — from the files of the Scott County Courthouse, here’s a first of its kind decision from Scott County District Court.  The court ordered that regarding the property of a landowner electing “Buy the Farm” (Minn. Stat. 216E.12, Subd. 4) the utility deposit the entire (utility) appraisal amount as it takes title in a quick take, similar to the requirement that it deposit the entire utility appraisal amount for an easement (and then the details are argued and agreed, or if no agreement is reached, it goes to Commissioners to make a recommendation to the court).

Scott County Buy the Farm Order 70-CV-12-8999

Here’s that specific most interesting part:

So will someone please explain why parties electing Buy the Farm aren’t all demanding the utilities deposit the full “Buy the Farm” appraised value?

This is just one of many (thousands?) of eminent domain proceedings for CapX 2020 transmission.  In the early stages, No CapX 2020 requested that the cost of Buy the Farm elections be considered in the cost/benefit analysis of transmission in the Certificate of Need.  If a large percentage of landowners elected Buy the Farm, the cost of the project would be much much higher.  Seeing that, consideration of impact of landowner election of Buy the Farm is an “issue outside the scope of the EIS” in recent Scoping Decision (Hampton-La Crosse 09-1448):

Now where’s that rule… I know it’s here somewhere!

Buy the Farm – Petition to Supreme Court

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on September 3, 2012 @ 9:00 pm

A month ago there was a dreadful decision where the Appellate Court tossed out Buy the Farm decisions regarding applicability of Ch. 117 condemnation law in Minnesota:

Wright County Order – July 13, 2011

Buy the Farm – NSP v. Aleckson, Pudas, Hanson, et al.

The Appellate Court decision shouldn’t stand, so many landowners would be detrimentally affected.

The two groups of landowners working up through the court system on Buy the Farm are now Petitioning the Supreme Court — these were filed Wednesday:

Northern States Power v. Roger Aleckson, et al. – Hanson and Stich Petition

Northern States Power v. Aleckson, et al. – Enos and Pudas Petition

Buy the Farm takes major hit

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on August 6, 2012 @ 11:45 am

screamhomer

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has just released a devasting decision — that Buy the Farm landowners are not “forced” to leave their property and are not entitled to other benefits under Minn. Stat. ch. 117 including relocation compensation.

Buy the Farm – NSP v. Aleckson, Pudas, Hanson, et al.

Thanks to the crass little birdie who sent word, errrrrrr…  tweet…. errrrrrr, email.

birdie-eveninggrosbeak

I hadn’t checked the missive from the court this morning, was on phone with distraught landowner facing condemnation when it came over the wire… how ironic.

This decision?  It’s grim, utility mantra all the way.  Here’s the meat of it:

Minimum Compensation

We agree with the district court that neither the Buy-the-Farm statute nor the minimum-compensation statute explicitly exempts application of the other. But the relevant eligibility requirements of the minimum-compensation statute must still be satisfied. The minimum-compensation statute only applies to landowners who must relocate. See Minn. Stat. § 645.44, subd. 15a (2010) (“‘Must’ is mandatory.”). Here, respondents chose to make their Buy-the-Farm elections and therefore chose to relocate. As such, we conclude that respondents are not landowners who “must relocate,” and therefore are not entitled to maintain a claim for minimum compensation under section 117.187.

Relocation Benefits

As discussed above, respondents were not required to relocate. The transfer of the fee interest in their property to appellants was a result of respondents making an election under section 216E.12. And while respondents had every right to make such an election, their claim that appellants are “forcing” them to move is disingenuous. The fact remains that appellants sought to condemn only an easement across respondendents’ properties. Respondents voluntarily decided to make their Buy-the-Farm elections, requiring appellants to acquire the fee interest in their entire parcels. As such, respondents are ineligible for relocation benefits under Minn. Stat. § 117.52.

This is SO offensive:

The fact remains that appellants sought to condemn only an easement across respondents’ properties.

“Only” — can you tell they’ve never dealt with transmission?

Only… how dare they!

Odds are it’s now headed to the Supreme Court.  I feel an Amicus Brief coming on.

horsesassaward



Buy the Farm at MN Appellate Court

Filed under:Appeal,Brookings Routing Docket,Cost Recovery,Fargo-St Cloud,FERC,Nuts & Bolts,Upcoming Events — posted by admin on May 21, 2012 @ 2:50 pm

manurespreader

Last week, Thursday to be precise, the “Buy the Farm” provision under the Power Plant Siting Act and Northern States Power’s challenge to compensation avenues available to landowners electing the “Buy the Farm option under Minn. Stat. 216E.12, Subd. 4 was at the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

This case stems from the St. Cloud to Monticello part of the Fargo to Monticello transmission line, the first to be permitted.  Now they’re trying to take the land.  The focus of the case is the landowners’ right to relocation compensation and other compensation, available both under Minn. Stat. ch. 117 (Minn. Stat.117.187 and 117.152), the Minnesota Uniform Relocation Act and federal law.  I don’t have a copy of the Stearns County District Court Order being appealed, but I do have a similar order that was issued in Wright County, reference in this brief:

Wright County Order – July 13, 2011

Here’s the court’s page for this case.

littlebirdie-cardinal

And here are the briefs, special thanks to a little birdie (and no thanks to our friends at NSP!):

Appellants NSP, et al., Initial Brief

Appellants NSP, et al., Initial Brief – Appendix

Respondents Enos Pudas – Brief

Respondents Hanson Stich – Brief

Appellants NSP, et al., Reply Brief and Supplemental Appendix

This case is in the news, as well it should be, it is THE appellate case of the year:

Landowners seek fair compensation for impact of CapX power line

May. 19, 2012

ROCKVILLE — Ken and Tess Koltes know the power line is coming, and they can’t stop it.

They know it’s not going to matter much whether they agree to the amount of money offered by the utility companies for the right to run the CapX 2020 line across their century dairy farm in St. Joseph Township, or whether they fight until the bitter end for every last dime.

Still, the Kolteses aren’t ready to go away quietly.

They have to live with the high-voltage transmission line scarring their rolling farm for the rest of their lives and the lives of their two sons, who started milking cows with them just two years ago. So they’re choosing to make it as difficult for the power companies as they can.

“We’ve got to do what we can,” Ken Koltes said. “We’re a small cog in the wheel, but we’ve got to try.”

The couple is among scores of Stearns and Wright county landowners caught up in a complicated legal process the CapX utilities are using to secure the land they need to build the 238-mile power line from Monticello to Fargo, N.D.

The condemnation process can be lengthy, expensive and sometimes daunting for landowners. It’s been used countless times to secure land for highways, buildings and pipelines, but rarely for high-voltage transmission lines.

In fact, this is the first time in four decades Stearns County has seen land condemned for a power line. And it’s the first test of a law passed in 1973 that allows landowners to force utility companies to buy their entire property rather than live beneath a high-voltage transmission line — an option known as “Buy the Farm.” That option has sparked legal debate and a case heard last week by the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

“This is new to almost everybody involved,” said Igor Lenzner, an attorney with Rinke Noonan, a St. Cloud law firm representing dozens of landowners in CapX condemnation cases.

What makes this time different, observers say, is the sheer number of landowners and properties involved and the complexity of the cases, as well as the emotional nature of the cases.

“Nobody wants somebody to come and say, ‘Guess what? We’re buying and you’re selling. You don’t have a choice,’ ” Lenzner said.

(more…)

Buy the Farm cases on St. Cloud to Monticello line

Filed under:Fargo-St Cloud,St.Cloud-Monticello — posted by admin on October 26, 2011 @ 9:04 am

Remember not too long ago that landowners challenged the utilities’ attempt to limit their compensation if they chose the Buy the Farm option?  Buy the Farm is Minn. Stat. 216E.12, Subd. 4:

Subd. 4. Contiguous land.

When private real property that is an agricultural or nonagricultural homestead, nonhomestead agricultural land, rental residential property, and both commercial and noncommercial seasonal residential recreational property, as those terms are defined in section 273.13 is proposed to be acquired for the construction of a site or route for a high-voltage transmission line with a capacity of 200 kilovolts or more by eminent domain proceedings, the fee owner, or when applicable, the fee owner with the written consent of the contract for deed vendee, or the contract for deed vendee with the written consent of the fee owner, shall have the option to require the utility to condemn a fee interest in any amount of contiguous, commercially viable land which the owner or vendee wholly owns or has contracted to own in undivided fee and elects in writing to transfer to the utility within 60 days after receipt of the notice of the objects of the petition filed pursuant to section 117.055. Commercial viability shall be determined without regard to the presence of the utility route or site. The owner or, when applicable, the contract vendee shall have only one such option and may not expand or otherwise modify an election without the consent of the utility. The required acquisition of land pursuant to this subdivision shall be considered an acquisition for a public purpose and for use in the utility’s business, for purposes of chapter 117 and section 500.24, respectively; provided that a utility shall divest itself completely of all such lands used for farming or capable of being used for farming not later than the time it can receive the market value paid at the time of acquisition of lands less any diminution in value by reason of the presence of the utility route or site. Upon the owner’s election made under this subdivision, the easement interest over and adjacent to the lands designated by the owner to be acquired in fee, sought in the condemnation petition for a right-of-way for a high-voltage transmission line with a capacity of 200 kilovolts or more shall automatically be converted into a fee taking.

AND LANDOWNERS WON!!!!  The court’s opinion is at this link:

Buy the Farm – a landowner win in District Court!

So now that Xcel’s been slapped down by the court, the landowners are challenging the offers and Commissioners have been appointed by the Court to determine compensation (that’s how eminent domain works under Minn. Stat. ch. 117).

From the St. Cloud Times:

CapX hearings over land payment begin in Stearns

11:17 PM, Oct. 24, 2011

Written by David Unze

The first contested hearings on compensation for property owners whose land was taken for the CapX 2020 high-voltage transmission lines begin today in Stearns County.

Cases will go before a panel of commissioners who will decide what the landowners should get, and two of them will use for the first time a Minnesota statute that was created after the bitter power-line disputes of the 1970s.

The “Buy the Farm” statute was created in response to the controversy that resulted when farmers were served with condemnation notices in preparation for a power line that was to be built through Central Minnesota.

That high-voltage power line was the most controversial energy project in state history and was built despite political, legal and physical challenges from nearby farmers.

The Buy the Farm statute allows certain landowners to force a power company to purchase the landowner’s entire home or farm rather than buy an easement over the property.

Because the law is specific to high-voltage, power-line land takings, and because there haven’t been any such takings since the law was enacted, this is the first chance for a landowner to use the statute, said James E. Dorsey, the attorney who represents Xcel Energy, one of the energy companies behind the CapX project.

There are about 34 contested cases in Wright and Stearns counties from the condemnation cases involving the Monticello-to-St. Cloud segment of the CapX line.

A handful of those involve the Buy the Farm statute.

There are more condemnation cases expected to be filed soon involving the segment that runs from St. Cloud to Alexandria.

Contested hearings on compensation go to a three-person panel appointed by a district court judge. Those panel members meet with the property owners, view the parcels of land and set a value based on the market.

The utility and the landowner have the right to appeal the commissioners’ decision back to the district court judge.

If no resolution is reached, the case could go to trial.

Buy the Farm – a landowner win in District Court!

transmission-sw-mn

Transmission going up in SW Minnesota (Fair Use – from mpr.org)

As Xcel tries to build its CapX 2020 wonderland, and as people are being served with Petitions for condemnation of their land for easements for this transmission buildout, people are starting to stand up and holler:

BUY THE FARM!

Buy the Farm, that little statutory out for landowners who don’t want anything to do with a transmission line, it gives them the option to say to the utilities, “NO, you’re not getting an easement, you’ve got to BUY THE FARM!”  Minn. Stat. 216E.12, Subd. 4.

Seems a number of landowners on the St. Cloud-Monticello part of the Fargo-Monticello CapX 2020 transmission line were telling Xcel/GRE a/k/a “CapX 2020 Applicants” what to do with their condemnation petitions, and so the utilities started playing hardball.

First, the bad news — the important newsif you want them to BUY THE FARM, you have 60 days, and no more. That’s 60 days when you’re first served with a Petition for Condemnation.  The people who were late were tossed out of court.  Moral to this story?  You snooze, you LOSE!  Please don’t snooze.

When a landowner is faced with condemnation, here’s a typical sample of what they get:

Utility’s Response to Buy the Farm Election by Landowner – March 1, 2011

Look at what they’re “asking” for – what a load:

manurespreader

response-list

So based on this, the landowners response was an eloquent PPPPPFFFFFFBBBBBBBBBBBT!

Respondents Stice and Shores Reply to Petitioner’s Response to Landowner Election of Buy the Farm – April 18, 2011

Oh, we’re ramping up here… now for their Memorandum:

Respondents Stice and Shore Memorandum of Law – April 18, 2011

And the utility attorneys argue that no, they don’t HAVE to move, they don’t get anything…

Utility Memo Arguing No Relocation, that Ch. 117 doesn’t apply

And the Court says…  (…drumroll …):

Wright County Order – July 13, 2011

Short version:

  1. One party’s motion for minimum compensation and relocation benefits granted, Minn. Stat. 117.187 and 117.52 apply to 216E.12.
  2. Another party’s motion relocation assistance, minimum compensation and loss of going concerned DENIED, stating there’s information to determination if their property is commercially viable.
  3. Another party tossed out, you snooze, you LOSE, there’s a 60 day window for Buy the Farm, and no more.  Close doesn’t count.
  4. Fourth party delayed until they have more time for Discovery and have a hearing later this month.

READ THE DECISION, really, this is probably the MUST READ of the year.

Buy the Farm and eminent domain

Filed under:Brookings Routing Docket — posted by admin on December 11, 2009 @ 10:12 am

There have been many questions about eminent domain at the hearings over the last two weeks.  And Buy the Farm.  So here’s a quick primer on a couple aspects of those issues.

Buy the Farm

Buy the farm is a statutory provision that grew out of the late 1970’s transmission struggles.  What’s important about Buy the Farm is that it allows people to get out from under the transmission line if there’s one planned for their property.  Rather than establish an easement, either through negotiations and a settlement or condemnation, this option allows a landowner to elect to tell the utility to “Buy the Farm.”   This law has been on the books for around 30 years, but not used because there have not been large transmission lines across Minnesota for decades.  They learned their lesson back in the late 70s, early 80s, see Powerline by Wellstone and Casper, but institutional memory is fading as those involved in those transmission struggles have retired, sold out, gotten government jobs, died, and so now here we are, they’re trying to do it again.

Subd. 4.Contiguous land.

When private real property that is an agricultural or nonagricultural homestead, nonhomestead agricultural land, rental residential property, and both commercial and noncommercial seasonal residential recreational property, as those terms are defined in section 273.13 is proposed to be acquired for the construction of a site or route for a high-voltage transmission line with a capacity of 200 kilovolts or more by eminent domain proceedings, the fee owner, or when applicable, the fee owner with the written consent of the contract for deed vendee, or the contract for deed vendee with the written consent of the fee owner, shall have the option to require the utility to condemn a fee interest in any amount of contiguous, commercially viable land which the owner or vendee wholly owns or has contracted to own in undivided fee and elects in writing to transfer to the utility within 60 days after receipt of the notice of the objects of the petition filed pursuant to section 117.055. Commercial viability shall be determined without regard to the presence of the utility route or site. The owner or, when applicable, the contract vendee shall have only one such option and may not expand or otherwise modify an election without the consent of the utility. The required acquisition of land pursuant to this subdivision shall be considered an acquisition for a public purpose and for use in the utility’s business, for purposes of chapter 117 and section 500.24, respectively; provided that a utility shall divest itself completely of all such lands used for farming or capable of being used for farming not later than the time it can receive the market value paid at the time of acquisition of lands less any diminution in value by reason of the presence of the utility route or site. Upon the owner’s election made under this subdivision, the easement interest over and adjacent to the lands designated by the owner to be acquired in fee, sought in the condemnation petition for a right-of-way for a high-voltage transmission line with a capacity of 200 kilovolts or more shall automatically be converted into a fee taking.

There’s only one case regarding Buy the Farm, which supports the option, the court noting that the legislature specifically intended to give landowners an out if faced with transmission.   What does the Minnesota Supreme Court have to say about “Buy the Farm?”

The enactment of §116C.63, subd. 4 reflects a creative legislative response to a conflict between rural landowners and utilities concerning HVTL right-of-ways.  Opponents of the utilities, resisting further encroachments upon the rural landscape and fearing the effects upon the rural environment and public health, not only challenge the placement and erection of high voltage transmission lines, but question whether the rural community’s sacrifice to the commonweal serves a greater social good.  The legislature, sensitive to these concerns but perceiving the occasion as demanding the construction of additional power-generating plants and high voltage transmission lines, enacted §116C.63, subd. 4 in partial response.

Section 116C.63, subd. 4 requires as a condition precedent to the exercise of the power of eminent domain delegated to utilities, the additional purchase from landowners electing under the statute of any property contiguous to easements condemned for the purpose of a HVTL right-of-way.  The statute defines such acquisitions to be for a public purpose.  In this manner, the legislature affords landowners not wishing to be adjacent to such right-of-ways the opportunity to obtain expeditiously the fair market value of their property and go elsewhere.  The statute, in so doing, responds to parties most affected by the operation of high voltage transmission lines; the statute eases the difficulties of relocation by shifting the transaction cost of locating a willing purchaser for the burdened property from landowner to utility.

Cooperative Power Ass’n ex rel. Bd. Of Dirs. v. Assand, 288 N.W. 2d 697, 698 (Minn. 1980).

Then there’s the matter of utility exemptions from the laws of eminent domain:

117.189 PUBLIC
SERVICE CORPORATION EXCEPTIONS.

Sections 117.031; 117.036; 117.055, subdivision 2, paragraph (b); 117.186; 117.187; 117.188; and 117.52,  subdivisions 1a and 4, do not apply to public service corporations. For purposes of an award of appraisal fees under section 117.085, the fees awarded may not exceed $1,500 for all types of property except for a public service corporation’s use of eminent domain for a high-voltage transmission line, where the award may not exceed $3,000.

Click on the links in the statute for the related statutory provisions that utilities are exempted from — IT’S APPALLING.

117.031 – Attorney Fees

117.036 – Appraisal and Negotiation Requirements

117.055, Subd. 2(b) – Petition and Notice

117.186 – Compensation for Loss of Going Concern

117.187 – Minimum Compensation

117.188 – Limitations

117.52, Subd. 1(a) and 4 – Uniform Relocation Assistance

117.085 – Commissioners, Power, Duties

To see what they’re exempt from, just click away.  Craig Poorker testified the utilities paid for “loss of going concern” but take a look at the utility exemption from Minn. Stat. 117.186 Loss of Going Concern.

If you have questions or comments, fire off in the comment screen below and I’ll post.

“Buy the Farm” statute applies to CapX 2020

Filed under:Laws & Rules — posted by admin on August 20, 2007 @ 9:49 am

transmissionpowerline_largempr.jpg

Minn. Stat. 216E.12, Subd. 4

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!!!

There’s something the utilities don’t want you to know about the CapX 2020 project. In Minnesota, after the powerline struggles decades ago, the legislature recognized that people needed an out, they needed a way to get out from under a line that would go through their property. Most people just don’t want a transmission line, that’s true. But Minnesota legislators figured out a way to let people have that out… it’s called “Buy the Farm.” It’s a law that gives landowners subject to condemnation the ability to get out from under the line:

Minn. Stat. 216E.12, Subd.4

Subd. 4. Contiguous land. When private real property that is an agricultural or
nonagricultural homestead, nonhomestead agricultural land, rental residential property, and both commercial and noncommercial seasonal residential recreational property, as those terms are defined in section 273.13 is proposed to be acquired for the construction of a site or route for a high-voltage transmission line with a capacity of 200 kilovolts or more by eminent domain proceedings, the fee owner, or when applicable, the fee owner with the written consent of the contract for deed vendee, or the contract for deed vendee with the written consent of the fee owner, shall have the option to require the utility to condemn a fee interest in any amount of contiguous, commercially viable land which the owner or vendee wholly owns or has contracted to own in undivided fee and elects in writing to transfer to the utility within 60 days after receipt of the notice of the objects of the petition filed pursuant to section 117.055. Commercial viability shall be determined without regard to the presence of the utility route or site. The owner or, when applicable, the contract vendee shall have only one such option and may not expand or otherwise modify an election without the consent of the utility. The required acquisition of land pursuant to this subdivision shall be considered an acquisition for a public purpose and for use in the utility’s business, for purposes of chapter 117 and section 500.24, respectively; provided that a utility shall divest itself completely of all such lands used for farming or capable of being used for farming not later than the time it can receive the market value paid at the time of acquisition of lands less any diminution in value by reason of the presence of the utility route or site. Upon the owner’s election made under this subdivision, the easement interest over and adjacent to the lands designated by the owner to be acquired in fee, sought in the condemnation petition for a right-of-way for a high-voltage transmission line with a capacity of 200 kilovolts or more shall automatically be converted into a fee taking.

Capping off the CapX 2020 project…

Filed under:Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse — posted by admin on October 10, 2015 @ 9:00 pm

I guess I’m not the only one putting this project in bankers boxes and wrapping it up.  11 years on this project, and it’s up, it’s built, wires in the air, cor-ten steel soldiers marching across the hills.  Yeah, it didn’t go in a few places it shouldn’t, but it went up in a lot of places it shouldn’t, like EVERYWHERE.  This project never should have been built.  2.49% annual increase in peak demand…  Yeah, right…  What a scam… and they got what they wanted, transmission for their surplus, sending it off to market, wherever.  Driving to WI last week, first passing under the span just below Wabasha, and then seeing the lines glistening in the sun stretching south of Alma, it was so depressing.  I hear there’s an article in the latest Zumbrota paper about it, guess people are finally noticing something is happening.  So hard to get people to care, and now it’s too late.

So after a long, long day of writing, bleary eyed, I head downstairs, see that there’s junk mail falling out into the porch, and checked outside to see if my 6 month tea order arrived, YES, it did, but noooooo, that’s not a Stash label… hmmmmm, and way too light.

CapXCap1

And dig the back, “La Crosse Project” SNORT!  Suzanne, Steve, George and Guy, eat your heart out…

CapXCap2

WHEW!!!  With receipt of this, my hourly rate on this project has just quadrupled!  And it’s appropriate dark mourning color.  Yeah, it’s over.  Too few glimmers of light, other than that landowners are winning on “Buy the Farm” cases, it’s not over the Laymen for Christ campground, or over NORCA and NRG North Routes, and I got my easement client almost 4 times their original lowball offer.

Thank you, little birdie!

vulture


previous page · next page


image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace