A Chinese Farmer Reacts to  Threat of Government Taking his Land.
June 12, 2010

Even landowners in communist countries don't react well to their land being confiscated.



A Chinese farmer named Yang Yude constructed a homemade multiple-tube rocket launcher, and fired it over the heads of those coming to confiscate his land.  For more, see the Reuter's story at http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6570QY20100608

Why is this story important? 

Just like the Iranians who took to the streets to protest Ahmedinejad, knowing they were risking their lives, this farmer lives in a country that subjects protesters to brutal treatment.

But, like the Iranian protesters, this farmer prizes freedom more highly than his life.

These folks weren't raised, as many of my generation were, on the story of Patrick Henry ("Give me liberty or give me death") and his revolutionary brothers who risked everything so that we might have the privilege of living in this great country.

So where does this willingness to sacrifice for freedom come from?  Is it born of a yearning that lives in us all, whether dormant or triggered by outside events?  Is it part of what makes us human?

If it is part of what makes us human, then why do folks here, living in the land of the free, where freedom of speech is a birthright, shrink from exercising that freedom for fear of consequences far less harmful than death?

Is it because most of us have as yet only experienced small nibbles at the edges of our freedoms, with the greater threats and confiscations aimed at somebody else, some other group of people?  Are we relieved at being told that the latest round of confiscatory laws won't touch us -- not yet, anyway?


Yesterday's Public Hearing on the Vermillion River
Watershed Amendments
May 28, 2010

Yesterday's public hearing took place as scheduled at 1:00 p.m., except in a different room. The JPO approved the amendments, but Commissioners Krause and Wolf expressed concerns about the required conservation easements, and indicated they want further information and discussion about them in the future.

A number of landowners in the watershed spoke at the hearing.  One landowner said the JPO's rules were having a monumental impact on some people's lives.  With land in Vermillion Township that he wants to split off so his daughter and son-in-law can build a house, he had already paid for the permits, but then learned that he would have to abandon 7-8 acres of land if he wanted to get the lot split approved.  

In response, Dakota County Commissioner Joe Harris said that they had tried every possible solution to try to benefit this landowner, but "we do have rules and regulations" and the JPO couldn't make an exception for one landowner.

Commissioner Harris said the amendments are intended to relax the existing standards. 

The buffer/easement standards themselves, however, except for a provision permitting existing grassed waterways in ag land to remain the same, remain unchanged.  Instead of reducing the impact of the easement requirements, the amendment adds a provision that sounds like it might postpone the easement requirements for communities with agricultural one per quarter quarter zoning.  Postponing a law is not the same as relaxing it.

But as previously pointed out, this provision is vague, and a prior statement by watershed administrator Mark Zabel suggested that he may have his own definition of "one per quarter quarter zoning."  This is because of clustering, which is allowed by some of the rural communities in the watershed.

Clustering is a mechanism that allows a landowner who owns more than one quarter quarter to use an unused building right to build an additional residence on a quarter quarter that already has a home on it.  Without the ability to cluster, landowners in communities with one per quarter quarter zoning would have to use the building right on a quarter quarter that doesn't have any building on it already.  Clustering is used in order to preserve high quality farmland, and allow people to build on land that is not as good for farming. 

Although it results in more than one home on a particular quarter quarter, it does not increase the average number of homes on a quarter quarter.

A Eureka Township landowner questioned whether she would be able to cluster an unused building right on a quarter quarter where she already had a house. 

Administrator Zabel repeated his prior statement that clustering near the river wouldn't be allowed, even though the land is in an agricultural community with one per quarter quarter zoning.

He didn't explain how he came to this conclusion, when the amendment specifically exempts agricultural communities with one per quarter quarter zoning. Does he mean that his definition of one per quarter quarter zoning means no clustering?  Does this mean that a community that allows clustering does not fall within the new exemption? 

Or does it just mean that you can't cluster near the river -- even though that's not what the amendment says.  Kathy Keena, assistant county attorney in attendance, did not offer to shed any light on this confusing issue.

More than one landowner criticized the JPO for scheduling the public hearing at 1:00  on a weekday afternoon, when most people are at work.  Commissioner Joe Harris responded that future public hearings would be held in the evening.

After the close of public comments, Commissioners Krause and Wolf said they wanted to know more about the existing requirements and how they affect landowners.  They both wanted to table the issue until next month's meeting.  After being told that the only issue before the JPO at the meeting was whether they wanted to relax the standards, and that changing the width of buffers or similar changes would require going through a separate process, all three commissioners voted in favor of the amendments.

Commissioner Krause added that he wanted to revisit the subject in the future.


When is the Public Hearing on the Vermillion River Watershed Amendments?
May 19, 2010

It's at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 27, 2010 at the Dakota County Western Service Center at Conference Room 334, 14955 Galaxie Ave., Apple Valley, Minnesota. 

Just in case you'd like to comment on the amendments but can't make it to the hearing, you can submit written comments, which will be accepted until 4:30 p.m. the day before the hearing, May 26, 2010.  Written comments can be sent to:

Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization
c/o Water Resources Office
14955 Galaxie Ave.
Apple Valley, MN 55124

or emailed to Mark.Zabel@co.dakota.mn.us

Public Hearing on Vermillion River Watershed Amendments to Water Management Standards
May 18, 2010

During last years' public hearings on the rural water management ordinance, Dakota County Commissioner Joe Harris promised that the Water Management Plan would be amended in response to objections voiced at those hearings.  At those hearings, landowners strongly objected to the provisions that forced conservation easements that would be required if a property was split.

The JPO has amended its Standards.  But the amendments ignore the objections voiced at last years' public hearings.  Instead of changing the buffer requirements, the amendments apparently postpone their effect in agricultural communities with low density zoning.  For areas with agricultural zoning that limit building eligibility to one per quarter quarter, the amendment postpones the coerced conservation easements until "the land use zoning is changed to an alternate use zoning or a higher density of residential building eligibilities."

 Whether the amendments actually postpone the mandatory conservation easements depends on how this language is interpreted.  Recent statements by Mark Zabel, the JPO Administrator, suggest that he may have his own interpretation of what constitutes one per quarter quarter zoning, and it may differ from the understanding of others who live in these rural townships.

And even if they do postpone the mandatory easements, there's the same effect on the value of an owner's property, encumbered by the cloud of easements that the government will demand in the future. 

Update on Vermillion River Watershed Water Management Plan
May 18, 2010

Last year, rural landowners in the Vermillion River watershed flocked to public hearings to object to the proposed ordinance that wold force them to give the government permanent conservation easements without compensation if they wanted to do a lot split. 

What's happened since then?

Eleven out of twelve rural communities adopted the ordinance because they were threatened with loss of their permitting powers, and told that the ordinance would become law no matter what they did.

Eureka Township declined to adopt the ordinance.  After a series of meetings between township and JPO representatives over the past year, Eureka continued to decline to adopt any part of the ordinance.  At a recent Eureka town board meeting, the township attorney said that he didn't believe that the JPO had the legal authority to take over all permitting from the township, and that he would have a hard time saying that the township could legally take the permanent conservation easements from landowners.

Which reminds me.  Last year, I spoke with Commissioner Joe Harris on the phone and told him I thought the forced conservation easements were unconstitutional.  He said that a county attorney had looked into this, and that he would see that I received an explanation of why the county attorney thought these easments were constitutional.  That was over a year ago, and I haven't received anything yet.

One of the issues that came up last year at the hearings was the question of why some of the mandatory conservation easements were required to be 150 feet wide, when some experts have said that you don't need more than a 50 foot easement to protect water quality.  This past November, Al Singer, Dakota County's land conservation manager, spoke at a meeting of the North Cannon River Watershed WMO and was asked this exact question.  He explained that although it was true that you don't need more than 50 feet for water quality, if you wanted to get grants from the Outdoor Heritage Fund, you also had to protect wildlife habitat, which required wider easements.  Of course, there's nothing in the Water Management Plan that says that easement acquisition depends on getting funding to pay for them.  But this does shed some light on the purpose of the forced easements -- they're not only for water quality.

Giving a New Meaning to "Wildlife Area"
June 25,  2009

We hear about the need for more open space and wildlife habitat all the time.  Just the other night we attended the Vermillion River Corridor meeting for our area.  The proposal for funding this project represented one of its goals as: "Identifies and integrates wildlife habitat protection/restoration and outdoor recreation (public access and trail) projects and priorities with water quality improvement activities"

Now wcco.com reports on "ongoing problems" in the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refugein Burnsville, where police are cracking down on males who frequent the wildlife area in order to have sex in public with strangers.  I'm guessing that's not exactly the kind of wildlife that the federal government intended to sponsor in this 14,000-acre refuge.

Although I suppose one could broadly interpret portions of the refuge's 2004 Comprehensive Conservation Plan promoting "native species and natural processes" to somehow support this natural use of the wildlife refuge.  Fortunately, however, local police do not adopt this point of view and instead call it "unacceptable behavior."