Public Comment. Volume III - Montana Legislature

3UDcommlttee-Pu blic Hearing
WALLACE D. MCRAE Ma,h 23, 2000
ROCKER SIX CATTLE CO.
HC 84 BOX 2055
FORSYTH. MONTANA 59327
Exhibit 2
Mr. Chairman. Members of the Committee:
M?- name is Wallace D. McRae. My address is Rocker Six Cattte Co., HC 84, Box 2055, Forsyth,
Montana 59327
I have attended hvo previous meetings of the Eminent Domain Subcommittee, and first of all
wish to express my appreciation for members of the public being allowed to express their view at these
meetings. Further I am pleased that the subcommittee has agreed to hold this hearing in Billings with
input allowed from Glasgow and Miles City.
I have previously stated that I would hope that these hearings do not degenerate into a
referendum on specific projects that involve the condemnation of private lands. I would encourage the
members of the subcommittee to consider the frustrations encountered in specific projects to be examples
of all past, present and future uses of condemnation and understand that the relating of specifics tend to
exemplify the unfairness that landowners der
under existing laws.
At past meetings there have been some issues and instances arise that I wish to address:
1. The staff was instructed to investigate laws involving condemnation in other states. This was
done. However, only laws in states of the Rbcky Mountain West were investigated despite
recommendations that other, more progressive laws in other states have been updated. Other states
outside the West have come to recognize that their laws unduly favored the condemnor and have made a
distinction between private speculative uses of condemnation, and the use of eminent domain by
governmental agencie- truly represent the public good.
'=ki
2. I feel that the effort expended on producing a "booklet of landowners' rights" is a complete
waste of time. The legislative charge to the EQC only mentioned landowner$ supposed lack of
information in the "whereas" section of the resolution and nowhere in the instructions of the Legislative
Resolution was a landowner booklet mentioned. We landowners that have been faced with condemnation
know full well what our minimal, so called, "rights" are. That is the problem. The laws need changed.
The booklet is merely a distraction from the real issue, and hopefully if the laws are changed, as they
should be, the booklet will have to be extensively rewritten to reflect a leveling of the playing field for
landowners.
3. The present situation where the condemnor can insist upon taking fee title, as opposed to the
taking of an easement, and construct and operate their facility prior to a settlement of the value of the
property is patently unfair. Despite what the private entities that use condemnation will tell you, they are
not required to, nor are they willing to accept an easement. They want to own the land. There are several
reasons why they are so insistent: a. They can sell portions to their condemned land to other entities
without even contacting the previous landowner. b. They are in a much stronger position to preclude the
crossing of their right of way by the previous landowner for facilities such as livestock water lines,
irrigation ditches, access roads, etc. and perhaps most importantly, they can condemn a right of way and
use that as collateral to attract financial investors for their speculative project.
4. I believe that the State of Monkma should require an assessment of need for a project prior to
condemnation being undertaken. The Governor, the Legislature, or some other appropriate Montana
-142- Volume Ill: Public Comment