{"id":4871,"date":"2013-05-29T14:38:30","date_gmt":"2013-05-29T21:38:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nocapx2020.info\/?p=4871"},"modified":"2013-05-29T20:21:17","modified_gmt":"2013-05-30T03:21:17","slug":"buy-the-farm-a-win-for-the-home-team","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nocapx2020.info\/?p=4871","title":{"rendered":"BUY THE FARM — A WIN FOR THE HOME TEAM!"},"content":{"rendered":"

Today we had a rulemaking Advisory Committee meeting about Public Utilities Commission rules for Certificate of Need proceedings. More on that later, because at 10:00 a.m. the Minnesota Supreme Court decision on Buy the Farm was released, and oh what a decision (Buy the Farm, Minn. Stat. 216B.12, Subd. 4<\/a>, is a statutory provision where landowners can force a utility to condemn their whole parcel, rather than just a narrow easement and let them get out from living under a transmission line). Kudos to Jerry Von Korff, who was at the rulemaking meeting, and his cohort Igor Lenzner, also Michael Rajkowski and Sarah Jewell, the attorneys who brought the appeal, plus Rod Krass\/Kirk Schnitker and yours truly on Amicus. It was a win for landowners, homeowners, farmers, business owners, for everyone who has transmission condemnation\/eminent domain cases pending, this one’s for YOU!<\/p>\n

Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion – Court File A11-1116<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It really doesn’t get much better than this.<\/p>\n

Buy the Farm Briefs<\/a><\/p>\n

Bottom line on minimum compensation? Landowners are entitled to minimum compensation:<\/p>\n

Appellants who elected to require utilities to condemn their entire properties in fee pursuant to Minn. Stat. \u00c2\u00a7 216E.12 (2012) are entitled to minimum compensation under Minn. Stat. \u00c2\u00a7 117.187 (2012) as owners who \u00e2\u20ac\u0153must relocate\u00e2\u20ac\u009d because on the date of the taking, the utilities took title to and possession of appellants\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 entire properties.<\/em><\/p>\n

… and …<\/p>\n

Accordingly, we must determine whether appellants were required to relocate at the time their properties were taken. Because NSP initiated quick-take condemnation proceedings, the time of the takings with respect to appellants\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 properties was when title to and possession of the property passed to NSP. See Moorhead Econ. Dev. Auth., 789 N.W.2d at 874 (explaining that \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the date of the taking\u00e2\u20ac\u009d in a quick-take condemnation proceeding is when \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the transfer of title and possession\u00e2\u20ac\u009d occurs, which is \u00e2\u20ac\u0153well before the commissioners file their award\u00e2\u20ac\u009d). It is undisputed that by the time title to and possession of appellants\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 properties passed to NSP, appellants had made their elections under Minn. Stat. \u00c2\u00a7 216E.12, subd. 4, which by operation of the statute, automatically converted the easements sought into fee takings. See Minn. Stat. \u00c2\u00a7 216E.12, subd. 4 (explaining that at the time the property owner makes an election, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the easement interest over and adjacent to the lands designated by the owner to be acquired in fee . . . shall automatically be converted into a fee taking\u00e2\u20ac\u009d). It follows that, at the time of the takings, NSP took title to and possession of appellants\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 entire properties in fee. Therefore, we conclude that appellants were owners under Minn. Stat. \u00c2\u00a7 117.187 who, at the time the takings occurred, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153must relocate.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Accordingly, they are entitled to minimum compensation.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Bottom line on relocation benefits? Landowners are entitled to relocation benefits:<\/p>\n

Because appellants are \u00e2\u20ac\u0153displaced persons\u00e2\u20ac\u009d under federal law, they are entitled to relocation assistance under Minn. Stat. \u00c2\u00a7\u00c2\u00a7 117.50-.56 (2012).<\/em><\/p>\n

… and…<\/p>\n

Because appellants are required to relocate permanently, they do not fall within the exemption in 49 C.F.R. \u00c2\u00a7 24.2(a)(9)(ii)(D). Therefore, because we conclude that appellants satisfy the definition of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153displaced persons\u00e2\u20ac\u009d under 42 U.S.C. \u00c2\u00a7 4601(6)(A)(i)(I) and do not fall within any exemptions to that definition, we hold that appellants are entitled to relocation assistance under Minn. Stat. \u00c2\u00a7\u00c2\u00a7 117.50-.56.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The decision was written by Justice Alan Page (photo from StarTribune www.startribune.com):<\/p>\n

\"AlanPage\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Yes, when he’s not wearing a football uniform, he’s the guy who is ALWAYS seen wearing one of his many classic “Jacobsen” bow ties, standing up for the public interest and the people of Minnesota. For him to be in the spot where he is, to do the work he’s doing, a long strange trip for a football player (sort of like it was for a truckdriver, eh?), with some good mentoring along the way.
\n\"\"
\nThis decision is something I’ve been working for, and toward, since I first got involved with the Chisago Transmission Project so long ago, and folks, that’s 17 years now…<\/p>\n

Now and then, some event rates an “OH HAPPY DAY!” and this is the best of all, so this time from Aretha… OH HAPPY DAY!!!<\/p>\n

 
\n