The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“H.R. 4581, THE EASEMENT OWNERS' FAIR COMPENSATION CLAIMS ACT OF 2005” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E2612-E2614 on Dec. 18, 2005.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
H.R. 4581, THE EASEMENT OWNERS' FAIR COMPENSATION CLAIMS ACT OF 2005
______
HON. W. TODD AKIN
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, in his first State of the Union address, President Abraham Lincoln said, ``It is as much the duty of government to render prompt justice against itself in favor of citizens as it is to administer the same between private individuals.'' President Lincoln said this in reference to the United States Court of Claims which he proposed Congress to establish for the purpose of justly resolving the claims of citizens against the United States. One of the most fundamental rights we enjoy in this nation is the right to know that our property is free from confiscation absent the protections of the Fifth Amendment. When the government does confiscate a citizen's property, the United States Constitution requires the government to provide the citizens from whom the property is confiscated full and fair compensation for the property that has been taken.
A matter has come to my attention in which the United States government falls tragically short of meeting this obligation. I refer to those individual property owners in St. Louis County whose property has been confiscated by the Federal Government for use as a public recreational trail under the Federal Trails Act. These citizens' property was taken more than 12 years ago when it was converted to a recreational trail under the Federal Trails Act, and they have still not received compensation. This is so despite the fact that the Justice Department has admitted in a settlement agreement and in numerous court pleadings that the Federal Government has confiscated their property and that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that the Federal Government pay these property owners the fair value of the property taken. The Justice Department and the property owners each hired appraisers who determined the fair value of the property and after 6 years of litigation in the Federal Court of Claims a settlement agreement was reached.
Yet, two days before this agreement was to be approved by the judge, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in a Georgia case called Caldwell v. United States. The Justice Department and the U.S. Court of Claims have interpreted that case as announcing a new rule for the time when a property owner must file a claim to recover the value of his property taken by operation of the Trails Act. This ``new rule'' is inconsistent with the understanding of Congress when we enacted the Trails Act and, as announced by the dissenting opinion in the Caldwell case, is ``contrary to all authority''. The Federal Circuit decision ruled that the statute of limitations for Trails Act compensation claims begins to run, not when the property owners land is actually taken from the landowner, but when the Surface Transportation Board issues a notice that there is a possibility that the land might be taken in the future.
Mr. Speaker, this ``new rule'' announced by the Caldwell court, as it has been interpreted and applied by the Justice Department and the lower courts, will work a great injustice to a limited number of property owners whose property has been confiscated but will now be denied compensation, while at the same time requiring the Federal Government to pay compensation for property that might never be converted to a public recreational trail. The new Caldwell rule will cost the Federal Government plenty--requiring taxpayers to pay significantly greater interest for compensation claims during the time before the property was ever taken from the land owners.
Mr. Speaker, this injustice is best illustrated by the letter I received from Gale and Sara Illig. Mr. and Mrs. Illig live in my home county of St. Louis, Missouri and their property was taken for a recreational trail. I incorporate Mr. and Mrs. Illig's letter in these remarks.
Dear Congressman Akin: We have a small business. Gale is in commercial holiday decorating and Sarah helps in the business. After a number of years of saving, in 1984 we bought our home in Grantwood Village. By most standards it is a modest home but it is a home that we love and have worked hard to care for and improve over the years. This home is where we have raised our family and now spend our retirement years. We are not a family of great wealth and our home represents our most significant asset.
When we bought our home in 1984, one of the features that appealed to us was the quiet and secluded community and location. A screened-in sun porch on the south side of our home is one of our favorite rooms. Outside the sun porch and further to the south is the now abandoned Missouri Pacific Railroad right-of-way. We own the property over which the MoPac held an easement for this branch-line of their railroad. The tracks themselves were just a single line and they were infrequently used. Between the tracks and our home was a large, attractive hedge which gave us privacy.
In 1992 a not-for-profit nature trail group negotiated with MoPac to acquire this now abandoned railroad right-of-way. We have been told that the federal government gave the trail group the authority to acquire this abandoned railroad right-of-way and to prevent us from using our property. We understand that the federal Trails Act gave them this ability to take our property even though under Missouri law we had the right to use and occupy this property once it was abandoned by MoPac. We wrote to Senator Bond in 1992 expressing concern about the effect this trail would have upon our home and property value. While the railroad had a full 100 foot width easement, they only used a very narrow 12 feet that was occupied by the train tracks and, as noted, that was used infrequently. Because of the Trails Act, the trail organization now claims the right to use the full 100 foot width of the original railroad easement, including the right to cut and remove all of the foliage on this part of our property. Additionally, with the trail use we now have, quite literally, hundreds of people biking and walking through our property where previously we enjoyed a quiet and secluded home.
Now, we want to make clear that we do not oppose recreational hiking and biking trails and we think parks and recreational trails are a fine thing. It is just that when, as in our situation, the federal government runs the trail through our property without our consent we believe that we should be fairly compensated for this taking of our property. This public trail runs just several feet from our sunroom and across almost the entire southern third of our property.
We have always understood that the U.S. Constitution provided us the guarantee that if our property were to be taken we would be compensated. I mentioned that we are a family of modest means and this is true. This causes us to feel even more painfully the effect that this taking of our property has had upon our own home value.
The government took our property almost 13 years ago. We spent more than 6 years in a lawsuit with the government seeking to be compensated for the government's taking of this property. In that lawsuit, the Justice Department agreed that this taking of our property represented a value of $72,065 taken from us by the federal government. The Justice Department also agreed that they would pay us this money and that they were responsible to make this payment under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Justice Department also agreed to pay us interest on this because it has now been 13 years since our property was taken. The Justice Department's agreement that they would pay us was long overdue but was very welcome.
As we get older we face the realistic understanding that we will not be able to live in our home forever. During the twelve years since the trail was created, Gale has suffered both cancer and a multiple heart valve replacement. The value that we have built up in our home is an asset that we look to provide for our needs when we reach a point where we can no longer care for this home and need to move into other living arrangements. For this reason the $72,065 plus interest since 1992, while not much money to the federal government, is quite literally huge to us. This is why we were so pleased when the settlement was reached last December.
* * * what happened next, * * * is still one of the most outrageous experiences in our life and represents a great injustice to us personally. Two days before the hearing with the Judge to approve the settlement, we understand that the Court of Appeals decided a Georgia Trails Act case. The government claimed this case changed the law and meant that now they now no longer had to pay us what they had agreed they were obligated to pay us for the confiscation of our property.
We are not lawyers so maybe that is why we cannot understand the nuances of this, but, to us, a very simple principle is involved. The government has taken our property, the government agreed that they have taken our property (I am told by [our attorney] that the government agreed to this not just once, but on multiple occasions in formal statements filed with the Court), the government agrees how much they owe us for the property, including interest, and the government is required by the U.S. Constitution to pay us this money. Then, at literally the last minute, they claim the law has changed because of a case in Georgia so they no longer have to pay us. This is just flat wrong! And, no amount of legal nuance can make it right.
Congressman Akin, a lot of us in St. Louis experienced the same sense of outrage during the October 16th Cardinals game against the Astros when the home plate umpire, Cuzzi, called what was clearly a ball to be a strike on Jim Edmonds and then threw Jim Edmonds out of the game. That bad call did not necessarily change the outcome of the game. But the tragic effect of this bad call by the Court in the Georgia case and the bad call by the Department of Justice to use that case as an excuse for the government to escape its obligation to pay us for our property represents a devastating financial setback for our family.
We have always worked hard, saved our money, and paid our taxes and expected that the federal government would treat us in a fair and just manner. We must tell you that we see this effort by the government to now escape their clear constitutional obligation to pay us (and the other one hundred property owners from whom they admit taking property) as a very fundamental injustice. For that reason, we are extremely grateful to have you represent us in the Congress and greatly appreciate your efforts to address this injustice. We are grateful for your help on this matter of such great importance to us.
Warmest regards,
Sarah and Gale Illig.
Mr. Speaker, this letter demonstrates my initial point that the Federal Government has dramatically fallen short of President Lincoln's standard of ``providing prompt justice against itself in favor of citizens''. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4581 remedies this injustice and also returns administration of the Trails Act to a manner consistent with Congress' intention when initially passed.
The Purpose of H.R. 4581, the Easement Owners' Fair Compensation Claims
Act of 2005
The Easement Owners' Fair Compensation Claims Act of 2005 will remedy the injustice worked by the Federal Circuit Decision in Caldwell v. United States. It will establish clearly Congress's intent regarding when the Trails Act is intended to interfere with a property owner's interest and it will provide that those property owners in the limited number of cases affected by this Caldwell decision are, in fact, provided full, fair compensation for the property that the Federal Government took from them while, at the same time, assuring that the Federal Government does not use taxpayers' funds to pay for claims where it did not take any property and where ultimately, no recreational trail is ever created. In so doing, we will bring justice on behalf of those owners whose property is taken and we will also preserve and steward the taxpayers' resources by not paying for claims where no recreational trail for public use is ever created. This bill will provide the constitutionally mandated compensation to those property owners whose lands have been confiscated (as the Justice Department has already admitted) while on a broader level saving the Government from having to pay money for property that is never taken for a public recreational trail and prevent the Federal Government from having to pay interest for a ``taking'' of property years before the property owner's State law right to use and possess the property is ever interfered with.
In short, H.R. 4581 restores the date for starting the statute of limitations to the date when the property owners' rights to the property are actually taken by the Federal Government. This is consistent with Congress's intention when the Trails Act amendments were passed in 1983 and will assure compensation to those property owners whose property the Government already acknowledged taking but not require the Government to pay compensation or interest for property never converted to trail use. H.R. 4581 will not undercut the operation of the Trails Act but will actually make it more cost efficient and will fairly treat those property owners whose property is actually taken for a trail.
____________________
