Latest news with #propertyrights
The Guardian
13 hours ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
An unlikely group of protesters fear Victoria's power bill is a threat to private landowners. Here's what we know
On Wednesday, an unlikely group of protesters gathered on the front steps of Victoria's parliament to oppose a piece of legislation that, at least on the surface, appears unremarkable. For this motley collective, which included farmers, prospectors, volunteer firefighters and animal advocates concerned about the plight of the wedge-tailed eagle, the National Electricity (Victoria) Amendment (VicGrid Stage 2 Reform) bill is a major concern. They fear the bill will give the government power to access their land without their consent to build transmission towers as tall as 85 metres. If they resist, they could be fined thousands. Sign up: AU Breaking News email Standing behind a makeshift cage made from farm gates, the rally organiser Andrew Weidemann slammed the bill, saying it made farmers and their families 'feel like we're behind bars'. He blasted the government's 'stupid push for this renewables agenda'. In another cage, a man stood holding a sign that read: 'I disagreed with Jacinta.' Also in attendance was the Victorian opposition leader, Brad Battin, who criticised the government for acting like a 'dictatorship' with 'draconian measures' that 'take away your rights'. When Battin said the Coalition would oppose the bill and repeal it if elected next year, the crowd cheered. So is this bill as alarming as some believe and what does it mean for Victorian property owners? Here's what we know. Introduced to parliament last month, the bill hands responsibility for planning the state's transmission network from the Australian Energy Market Operator (Aemo) to the government agency VicGrid. It also gives VicGrid the responsibility for developing renewable energy zones. The bill creates two new funding streams to support communities impacted by the construction of energy infrastructure and legislates financial incentives for landholders, who will receive $8,000 per kilometre of infrastructure on their land annually. But it also provides VicGrid and their contractors power to access private land without consent when required to construct energy infrastructure. The bill states authorised officers can 'use reasonable force to gain entry' to private land 'if it is reasonably necessary to do so'. It also prohibits landowners 'obstructing, hindering, or delaying the entry of the authorised officer'. Individuals who resist face fines of up to $12,000, while body corporates could be slapped with fines of up to $48,000. Refusing to provide your name or proof of ownership could result in fines up to $4,000, while interfering with a notice of entry could attract a fine of $1,221. Only authorised officers can access land and the bill sets strict rules for them. They must give written notice of entry to the landowner or occupier at least 30 business days before entry and again 48 hours before. If the officer can't find the owner of the land, the notice can be published in a newspaper and posted near the property entrance. Only if an officer has been blocked or disrupted from accessing a property are they able to use force, and only after applying to the magistrates court for an entry order. The court order allows the officer and other approved people to enter, use reasonable force if needed, bring equipment and be accompanied by police. If at this point you attempt to block their access, the larger fines apply. A government spokesperson said these powers are intended to be used as a last resort – only when all avenues to reach agreement for voluntary access have failed. The Victorian premier, Jacinta Allan, has defended the bill. She said the government and private companies already have the power to forcibly access and acquire land. 'Whether it's for transport projects, for energy projects, for other projects, there are already arrangements in place for access to land. What this is providing is landowners – through VicGrid – a place where they can work through the these issues,' Allan said. She conceded some private companies' dealings with landowners had been 'not up to scratch' but said the new legislation would improve coordination. Allan said more high-voltage transmission lines were needed to connect homes and businesses to 'reliable, cheaper and more secure renewable energy' as it comes online and ahead of the closure of 'ageing coal-fired plants'. Battin responded: 'We're not anti-renewable energy but you can't do it by bulldozing through people's properties.' Yes and no. All levels of government – local, state and federal – have the power to compulsorily acquire private property in certain circumstances. In New South Wales, the government similarly set up its own body, EnergyCo, to lead the development of renewable energy zones and the transmission infrastructure needed to support them. EnergyCo holds compulsory acquisition powers but they are only exercised after at least six months of attempted negotiations for voluntary acquisition. The Victorian government says NSW, South Australia and Tasmania have fines for landowners for denying entry to authorised officers. In late 2024, VicGrid released a draft plan that identified seven renewable energy zones in the state that could host renewable projects, including wind turbines, solar farms and battery storage. Several travel through agricultural areas, angering farmers, who have also been subject to an increased emergency services levy in recent weeks by the Allan government (though it has been paused this year due to drought). That levy has also been criticised by volunteer firefighters, who joined Wednesday's rally, as well as animal activists who say windfarms pose a deadly risk to endangered wedge-tailed eagles. The VicGrid plan will be finalised later this year and will also include proposed transmission line routes. It includes projects already committed to or expected by Aemo, such as the Victoria to NSW Interconnector West and the Western Renewables Link, a 190km transmission line from Bulgana in western Victoria to Sydenham in Melbourne's north-west. Both projects have faced substantial delays, in part due to community opposition. But the government appears determined for them to press ahead. The bill is expected to pass the lower house on Thursday and then move to the upper house next sitting week.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
South Jersey businessman fights to protect property amid Super Wawa plans
MANTUA, N.J. - A South Jersey businessman, Mike Campbell, is fighting to protect his property from being partially taken for road improvements linked to a new Super Wawa planned at a busy Mantua intersection. Campbell feels caught in a David vs. Goliath situation as Gloucester County officials propose using part of his property at Route 45 and Harrison Avenue to widen the road and add a turning lane. What we know Campbell purchased the small house as an office building five years ago. Since then, the county announced the need for highway improvements, coinciding with Wawa's plans to build a new superstore at the intersection. Campbell suspects a connection between the two developments and has put up signs targeting Wawa. What they're saying "I'm not slandering Wawa," Campbell stated, "I think with a period of time that they've been there if they were offended, I'd be hearing from their attorneys." In January 2025, the Mantua mayor addressed the intersection improvements and the Wawa proposal, stating on the city's website, "These intersection improvements are warranted, especially with the proposed Super Wawa coming to this area in the future." Residents like Johnny Greco acknowledge the potential impact of a Super Wawa on traffic: "If this is a Super Wawa, it's already a busy intersection and it'll become a lot busier." Carl Jackson, another resident, empathizes with Campbell's predicament: "It would suck for him. I don't know how to balance that out. It's a tough one." What's next Campbell is seeking fair compensation for his property loss and hopes his signs will bolster his cause. He has rejected the county's low offer for part of his property. We have reached out to the county and Wawa for comment and will provide updates as they become available. As the situation unfolds, Campbell's fight highlights the challenges faced by small property owners in the face of large-scale development projects. Solve the daily Crossword
Washington Post
7 days ago
- Business
- Washington Post
They couldn't pay their taxes, so D.C. took it all. Unconstitutionally.
Christina Martin, a senior attorney at the law firm Pacific Legal Foundation, was the lead attorney in the Supreme Court case Tyler v. Hennepin County and is representing Juanita Powell in the constitutional challenge to D.C.'s tax foreclosure law. Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the government violates the Constitution when it takes property to pay a tax debt and keeps more than what is owed. That landmark decision affirmed the importance of private property rights.
E&E News
24-07-2025
- Politics
- E&E News
Wyoming rancher wants Supreme Court to slam door on ‘corner-crossing'
A Wyoming rancher is asking the Supreme Court to reverse an appellate court's ruling on 'corner-crossing' that allows hunters and others to cross over slivers of private property on their way to public land throughout the West. Citing an 'important and recurring' question affecting property rights across 150 million acres, attorneys for the Iron Bar ranch urged the high court to scrutinize the earlier ruling issued last March by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That unanimous decision by a three-judge appellate panel gave the green light to so-called corner-crossing, which occurs when an individual steps from one public tract to another, passing diagonally across two adjacent parcels of private property. Iron Bar's attorneys call this trespass. Advertisement 'This case presents questions of profound legal and practical significance,' a team led by attorney R. Reeves Anderson, identified as the counsel of record, wrote in a petition for a writ of certiorari filed with the Supreme Court.
CBS News
23-07-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Ocean City, Maryland, votes against restrictions on short-term rentals
Voters in Ocean City, Maryland, rejected an ordinance that would have put restrictions on short-term rental properties. The ordinance failed during a special election Tuesday, with 800 votes for and 834 votes against the measure, according to the city government. The ordinance, passed by the mayor and city council in March, would have initially imposed a minimum five-night stay for homes rented in certain single-family neighborhoods or mobile home communities. These changes would have gone into effect for 2025 and 2026. By January 2027, the measure would have required a minimum 31-night stay for homes rented in those designated communities. The ordinance would have impacted Ocean City's R-1 single-family districts and MH mobile home district. Currently, there are five R-1 districts in the city, and one mobile home district. More than 4,000 homes would have been affected by the ordinance. After it was passed by city leaders last year, the rental ordinance received sharp criticism, especially from the Ocean City Maryland Property Rights group. The group launched a petition that led to the special election. In it, advocates claimed the changes to short-term rentals would threaten property rights and lessen Ocean City's appeal as a vacation destination. "A ban on short-term rentals in Ocean City won't just hurt hosts," the group said in their petition. "It will hurt Ocean City's economy, its appeal to family vacationers, and its community spirit." The petition encouraged residents to vote against the ordinance. WJZ has reached out to the mayor's office for comment.
