Tag: private property

The Biden-Harris Govt Is Helping China Buy Land Near U.S. Bases.

The Biden-Harris government’s Department of Agriculture is quietly reclassifying numerous property developers and other companies in what appears to be an effort to work around restrictions on Chinese land ownership near U.S. military bases and installations. The move comes despite continued warnings from the U.S. intelligence community and other agencies in the Biden-Harris government that China poses an increasing national security risk and is actively opposing U.S. interests through domestic and foreign counter-intelligence actions.

At the center of the Department of Agriculture controversy is the recent change in designation for Walton Global, a property developer that has been considered one of the top Chinese-controlled U.S. land owners for years. The company has expanded its footprint in China since 2018 and was—until recently—listed by the U.S. government as one of the five top Chinese owners of U.S. agricultural land.

Keep reading

Hysterical, power-hungry EPA will require all property owners to have “no detectable level of lead dust in the air” – an impossible feat

Lead exposure is a serious health concern, especially for children, whose developing brains are drastically affected by the heavy metal. However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is going a step too far in regulating the heavy metal on private property.

According to new rules released by Biden’s EPA — homes, apartment buildings and child care facilities must test completely negative for lead. Under most circumstances, this is completely implausible. Lead particulate matter is ubiquitous is air measurements across the world.

Instead of taking realistic steps to mitigate the risk of heavy metal exposures, this new rule gives the EPA unlimited power and uses hysterical measurements to seize control over private property.

All air and soil contain detectable levels of lead, but there’s no reason to panic

Under the new rules, any detectable level of lead dust in a building would be considered a “lead hazard” and property owners would be ordered by the EPA and the courts to clean up the building. If remediation efforts are not good enough (and they won’t be in most cases), then the building may be condemned or torn down.

This is what happens when hysteria takes over the regulatory agencies: they virtue signal about detecting irrelevant concentrations and then use their findings to justify abusing their power. In the study National Trends in Lead Concentration in 2010-2023, the ambient lead level in the atmosphere across the US is just over 0.025 ug/m³. This is based on measurement of 79 sites across the country. Similarly in Europe, soil levels of lead are routinely measured at 25-35 ng/m³, which is approximately the same level.

According to the study, the average concentration of lead hasn’t gone up in the last decade. A recent document from the EPA shows that the dust in the air, averaged across all monitoring sites, ranges from 0.015 to 0.045 µg/m³.These are detectable levels of lead across the Earth’s atmosphere and throughout the soil, but the existence of lead at these levels does not mean everyone’s lives are in danger and it must be remediated at all costs!

The EPA, on the other hand, disagrees now, and will be able to take any detectable level of lead and seize power over the situation, claiming a public health threat in a building, and ordering the expensive remediation and takedown of properties throughout the country. While there has been a natural 87% decrease in the national average of lead in the Earth’s atmosphere, the EPA could still find a meaningless, detectable level of lead somewhere and claim dominion over that property, demanding remediation.

Keep reading

Pennsylvania Angler Fights Back Against Warrantless Property Searches by Fish & Boat Commission

In a bold move to defend his constitutional rights, Tim Thomas, a resident of Susquehanna County, has filed a federal lawsuit against the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission.

The case challenges a state law that allows waterways conservation officers (WCOs) to enter private property without a warrant. Thomas, with the support of the Institute for Justice (IJ), hopes to strike down this law and restore the Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless searches.

Thomas and his late wife, Stephanie, bought their peaceful lakeside cabin on Butler Lake in 2014, but their sanctuary was soon disrupted. In 2023, Officer Ty Moon of the Fish and Boat Commission entered their property on two occasions without a warrant based on unfounded fishing violations.

Moon ignored multiple “No Trespassing” signs, walked around their home, and even confiscated fishing rods from Thomas’ dock. Both citations were later dismissed in court.

When WCO Moon entered the Thomases’ side yard, Stephanie (Tim Thomas’ wife) was taking a bath in the cabin, which has an uncovered window facing the yard; WCO Moon walked within 3 feet of that window as he walked through the side yard and into the backyard.

What troubles Thomas most is the sense of invasion. “We bought this cabin for peace and privacy,” he said, recalling how Moon passed by his windows, even as his wife, battling stage four cancer, was inside. “The first time was bad enough, but the second time felt even more intrusive.”

Thomas’ lawsuit, filed in September 2024, highlights the conflict between Pennsylvania law and the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches.

The law in question grants WCOs sweeping authority to enter private land and conduct searches without a warrant, a power far beyond what is granted to typical law enforcement officers.

John Wrench, an attorney with IJ, emphasized the gravity of the case. “You don’t lose your constitutional rights because you live near a lake,” he said. “If the government wants to search your property, they need a warrant. That’s a fundamental right in this country.”

The lawsuit follows other similar legal battles challenging the so-called “Open Fields Doctrine,” which permits law enforcement to search rural lands without warrants under certain conditions. Recent victories, like one in Tennessee earlier this year challenging warrantless trespassing and surveillance on private land, suggest a growing push to restore Fourth Amendment protections against such overreach.

Keep reading

What Happens When FEMA Buys Your House?

It’s been a rough hurricane season. Between them, Hurricanes Helene and Milton have devastated many communities throughout the southeast. Rebuilding what was lost will take years. 

But as devastating as these storms have been, they are sadly not unique. Property damage from storms and flooding is on the rise. Storms resulting in over a billion dollars in damages have become more frequent in recent years. 

The prospect of repeatedly having to rebuild properties in storm-prone areas has led some governments to pursue an unusual solution to the problem: buy the properties themselves. Some local governments, in partnership with federal agencies such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), have developed programs that use disaster relief funds to purchase homes in flood- or storm-prone areas. This isn’t the only way, or even the best way, to reduce the destruction from increasingly severe natural catastrophes. But the idea is that keeping such vulnerable properties vacant will save money in the long run because they won’t need to be continually rebuilt after storms.

Such buyouts are hardly ideal and can lead to some perverse situations. In 2021, an NPR investigation revealed that HUD was selling homes in flood-prone areas to unsuspecting buyers even as it was buying out homes in the same neighborhoods under a flood mitigation program. While not ideal, in a world where government disaster relief is a given, a voluntary buyout program could make fiscal sense in some circumstances. Voluntary buyout programs have been implemented in over a thousand counties and have been used to relocate almost 50,000 households throughout the country. 

The situation is very different when the buyout ceases to be voluntary. A little-known provision in the Hazard Mitigation and Relocation Assistance Act of 1993 authorizes local governments to implement a mandatory buyout program for flood-prone areas. So far, just three localities—Cedar Rapids in Iowa, Minot in North Dakota, and Harris County in Texas—have adopted a mandatory buyout program. The Harris County program is the largest of the three and is expected to forcibly purchase 585 households and 390 businesses by 2026 and turn the land into green space.  

Keep reading

California County Fines Man $120,000 for Refusing to Evict a Family From His Property

Hundreds of people live in trailers and campers on the streets of Santa Clara County, California—a very visible sign of the ultra-expensive county’s homelessness crisis.

Despite the scale of vehicular homelessness in the county, county officials have spent years focusing their enforcement actions on a single trailer parked on private property.

For years now, winery owner Michael Ballard has allowed his longtime vineyard manager, Marcelino Martinez, and his family to live rent-free in a trailer parked on the winery’s property.

County officials say this violates a county ordinance prohibiting recreational vehicles (RVs) parked on residential parcels from being used as dwelling units. Therefore, Martinez’s trailer has got to go.

Ballard has been trying to fix the violation by building a permanent home for Martinez and his family on the property. But getting all the needed permits from the county for that home has taken years.

In the interim, Ballard has refused to evict Martinez’s family from the property.

“I’m not going to remove this trailer because that will cause them to be homeless and I’d be putting this family on the street and I’m not going to do that,” Ballard tells Reason.

In response, the county has issued Ballard daily fines for every day he refuses to remove the trailer. These fines total some $120,000.

Ballard is now suing the county in federal court, arguing the fines violate the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on excessive fines.

Keep reading

Woman’s insurance canceled after drone flies over her home

A woman had her insurance canceled after a drone flew over her home.

According to CBS News,a woman from Modesto, California told CBS Sacramento that her home insurance company of nearly 40 years dropped her coverage because of what it spotted with a drone.

Joan Van Kuren told CBS that she’s been renovating her home for more than three years, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to have her driveway redone, her kitchen updated and bathroom renovated, among other changes and upgrades.

“It was amazing,” Van Kuren told CBS when asked how it felt to get all the projects finished. “It was wonderful because it took forever.”

Soon after, however, Van Kuren said she was notified by letter that her home insurance company of nearly four decades, CSAA, had dropped her. According to CBS, the company cited a substantial increase in hazards with clutter or unsanitary conditions, with the letter calling it an unacceptable hazard and liability exposure.

Van Kuren told the network’s reporters that she decided to contact CSAA about the decision.

“She said they flew a drone over the home,” Van Kuren told CBS. “It almost feels like someone’s looking in your windows, you know, when they tell you that they flew a drone over your home and looked at it. It’s like, whoa.”

According to CBS, CSAA told Van Kuren that there was debris on the left side of the house.

Keep reading

Proposed Australian plans for “energy efficient” homes will destroy private home ownership

The ClimateWorks Centre has devised a “renovation wave” plan for household upgrades and preparing occupants for more frequent extreme temperatures, heatwaves and climate-related events.

It is claimed that upgrading homes built before 2003 to be more energy efficient with better insulation, electrifying appliances and heating, and adopting rooftop solar can save Australian households up to $2,200 annually on energy bills. The majority of existing residences across Australia (11 million homes) can benefit from thermal efficiency upgrades, making a renovation wave a feasible and impactful initiative, so it is claimed.

It is also claimed that by designing or renovating homes to account for expected climate impacts, such as increasing temperatures and extreme heat events, can mitigate the effects of climate change.

ClimateWorks Centre’s report identifies 16 archetypes of homes that cover approximately 80% of single-storey detached homes and townhouses, and over 50% of apartments. These archetypes provide a framework for homeowners, policymakers, and industry stakeholders to prioritize renovation efforts.

By investing in climate-ready homes, Australia can create a more resilient and sustainable built environment, while also addressing the cost-of-living crisis and mitigating the impacts of climate change, so they say.

Keep reading

California Handyman Finds Way to Get Rid of Squatters

Squatting is a widespread problem, says Flash Shelton, a handyman and anti-squatting activist from Northern California. But he says he’s found a solution.

Shelton said he successfully got his mother’s house back from a group of squatters in 2019. He has since turned his experience into a career, helping others facing similar situations.

Shelton said on a recent episode of EpochTV’s “California Insider” that in 2019 after his father passed away, he moved his mother into his home. However, when they tried to sell her house, he discovered that a group of people had broken in and taken over.

After contacting law enforcement, he quickly learned that since the squatters had moved in with furniture to make it appear they lived there, it was considered a civil matter rather than a criminal one, leaving the authorities unable to act.

Although squatting or trespassing on a vacant property is illegal in California, the situation becomes complicated when law enforcement are unable to determine whether people are trespassers or have a legitimate claim to the space.

The presence of furniture and personal belongings can create the appearance of a tenant-like situation, which may force the property owner to follow formal eviction procedures rather than having the squatters removed as trespassers.

Instead of enduring the lengthy eviction process, Shelton found a “backdoor” solution: becoming a squatter in his mother’s house to oust the squatters.

“I figured that if I could become their squatter and switch places with them, that I would assume those rights,” he told the show’s host, Siyamak Khorrami.

He asked his mother to sign a lease granting him legal rights to the property. He then returned to the house and set himself up as the new “tenant.”

“As soon as they left the driveway, I went into the house, secured the back door, put up cameras, set up an alarm system, and then when they arrived back, I told them I have possession of the house,” he said.

The squatters eventually left.

Keep reading

Above the law: Secret Service agents get caught picking the lock of a local business to use the facilities and snack on the candy

What does a “progressive” government think of private property rights? Well, they’re just temporary privileges granted by the all-powerful state which can be tread on and revoked at discretion.

Immediately after Kamala Harris replaced Joe Biden on the Democrat ticket after a successful coup—Biden’s first interview since the switcheroo, which aired yesterday, described being pushed out by colleagues—she held a fundraiser in Massachusetts, during which time Secret Service agents allegedly broke into a nearby business, a small local hair salon, so they could have access to private bathroom facilities. Porta potties are just so below their station, and of course planning ahead with private mobile bathrooms would have required competent preparation, something we all know the Secret Service seriously lacks, from the top tiers of leadership to agents on the ground. 

Agents reportedly kept the door open all day allowing other “haves” to use the business’s restroom, snacked on the candy by the reception desk intended for salon customers, and when they were done, left the doors unlocked and camera lenses covered by tape.

Keep reading

The Rule of Law and Property Rights

Respect for the rule of law cannot simply mean a moral obligation to obey legislation. History is replete with too many examples of tyrannical legislation for that notion to pass muster. But if the rule of law does not mean obeying whatever legislators enact, what does it mean?

Murray Rothbard argued that this question must be answered by reference to ethical guidelines, which he constructed around the concepts of self-ownership and property rights. Rothbard conceptualized property rights as inalienable and absolute natural rights. Seen in that light, eminent domain legislation is unethical and unjust. The example of New York illustrates the significance of this point, as explained by the Institute for Justice:

“In New York, eminent domain gives the government the power to take your property, even if you don’t want to sell. But under the Fifth Amendment, eminent domain must be for a ‘public use,’ which traditionally meant projects like roads or bridges. Meanwhile, the government must pay the owners ‘just compensation’ for their property.

“Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court gutted federal protection against unconstitutional eminent domain when it handed down its decision in Kelo v. New London in 2005. By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court dramatically expanded the definition of ‘public use’ to include private economic development. In other words, local governments can condemn homes and businesses and transfer them to new owners if government officials think that the new owners will produce more taxes or jobs with the land.

“As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor warned in her dissent: ‘The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.’”

South Africa has gone even further with its expropriation laws, by providing in its constitution that “public purpose” can include anti-racism, equity and protection of “vulnerable groups.”

“In terms of section 25(4)(a) of the Constitution ‘public interest includes the nation’s commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa’s natural resources.’ Section 25 (8) further states that the state may take ‘legislative steps and other measures … in order to redress the results of past racial discrimination.’”

Keep reading