The legislature is working to fast-track some really bad bills. Disguised as bills related to ‘property rights’, these bills actually take the rights of Wisconsinites and Wisconsin communities to prosper and do what they wish on their property. These bills allow big companies to destroy the Wisconsin we all know and love. The ‘property rights’ they are talking about are the ‘rights’ of a company to open a giant frac-sand mine, factory, or other large development next door to you. These bills pit neighbor against neighbor—further polarizing Wisconsin.
Despite this claim, the bills don’t have the support of lakeshore property owners associations or groups concerned about local property rights, they have support from business lobbyists like the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and the Developers Association.
Two of the worst bills include:
AB582/SB464: Corporate Control over Local Control directly undermines the ability of cities, towns, and counties to protect the rights of everyone living in that community. According to the bill sponsors, Senator Lasee and Rep Jarchow, the rights of a company to mine their property supersede the needs for a community to set limits on air and water pollution. The problem is that pollution doesn’t know property lines. Air pollution caused by a frac-sand mine can affect you, your family, and your neighbors.
Wisconsin ranks #6 for the most towns and municipalities in the country. That’s because Wisconsin has always recognized the importance of local governments striking a balance between the rights of one property owner and the rights of the other property owners in the community. Everyone in the community has the right to live their life—without asthma, respiratory illness, or any other problem caused by a development next door. The answer is a set of rules that everyone agrees to follow. Instead, AB582/SB464 creates an unfair imbalance, favoring the property owners with money for big developments.
The bill does a number of things, including:
- Freezes the local rules as soon as a company applies for an application: This is unfair because the application could be the first time an entity has heard of the proposal. Upon learning more, they cannot set rules based on new knowledge that has been discovered. When an application for a project is put in; that’s when the entity granting the permit should begin researching the potential impacts and then set standards based on it.
- Worse, the company doesn’t even need to apply for the entire project; a small piece can force approval of an entire project. Senator Vinehout gave the example: ‘a developer could file an application for a state culvert permit to be used as part of a frac sand mine, attach a map of the potential land and prevent any additional local regulation for any of the parcels of land used for that purpose.’
- Undermines local rules: the bill ‘invalidates any ordinance, resolution, or policy currently in effect that is inconsistent with the prohibitions in the bill’. This vague phrasing could mean that this bill is much farther-reaching than we would ever know. The bill also ‘applies to pending court cases’.
- Prohibits counties from adopting moratoriums: Development moratoriums have been very important tools used when a municipality wants to study the impacts of certain types of projects, as well as the impacts of numerous project proposals at once. For example, frac-sand mines are relatively new. A county may want to study the impacts on air quality. Suddenly, if there are 5 or 6 proposals at once, a county may want to study the cumulative impacts of all of the proposals before permitting any of them.
- Changes reporting requirements: the changes needlessly remove transparency and notification for some groups and in some cases, add a burden for taxpayers
- Prohibits local governments from making certain decisions on developments. This is the state directly telling a town what they can (or more specifically cannot do)—no matter what the town board and community members think. In some cases, the bill actually requires a unanimous vote—which is unprecedented.
Senator Vinehout says the bill will “create a race between a developer, builder, or contractor against local government”. Is that really how we want local governments to make decisions and create rules? Out of haste and snap judgements instead of long, thought-out processes that involved input from all community members?
AB600/SB459: Taking the ‘public’ and ‘trust’ out of the Public Trust doctrine: The founders of Wisconsin knew that the waters of Wisconsin don’t belong to one person—they belong to all the people of Wisconsin. This is why so many Wisconsinites enjoy the water—swimming, fishing, kayaking, etc. This is often referred to as the ‘public trust doctrine’. AB600/SB459 undermines this. Helen Sarakinos with the River Alliance of Wisconsin referred to this as “a full-out attack on water protection.”
Some lowlights of this bill include:
- Gives away public water land: It’s hard to believe, but this bill literally gives away former waterways—now public land—to adjacent property owners.
- Removes permitting requirements for certain activities
- Allows property owners to dredge up to 100 cubic yards from the Great Lakes or 30 cubic yards from an inland lake. Again, disguised as property rights, this bill doesn’t consider the rights of you to fish or enjoy your water that has just been disrupted by massive amounts of dredging.
- Prohibits the DNR from collecting sediment samples as part of an application—curtailing the ability of the DNR to ensure that a project doesn’t disrupt the waterway for everyone else.
- Limits areas that currently have special protections, including up to 20% of Wisconsin wetlands that aren’t federally protected, including a number near the site of the proposed Penokee mine
- Further politicizes water protection by shifting the power from the scientists at the DNR to those with the education and experience to understand the impacts and gives that power to the legislature or the Governor’s appointees at the Public Service Commission.
- Worse, removes the ability for someone to object to a development next door, regardless of the impact it could have on you or your property
If passed, this will cause wetlands to be destroyed and more pollution in our rivers and streams. There will be more developments right up on the water—no matter what the community thinks.
Here is just one example of how these new bills could directly affect someone in Wisconsin:
Let’s say your name is Jack and have property that includes a beautiful marshy area near Hayward, WI. You live in the same home you were raised in that your parents left you. You remember playing in that marshy area behind your house as you grew up; now you watch your kids enjoy that same marshy area as they explore, catch frogs, and learn.
Enbridge announced they plan to expand their pipeline corridor—doubling the size—suddenly they want to put a tar sands corridor under your property. Given the new expansion of eminent domain (supported by the ‘pro-property rights’ sponsors of these bad bills), Enbridge is allowed to force you to give up your land. Then, let’s say Enbridge applies to get a wetland permit from the state, maybe because of the DNR’s track-record of giving Enbridge’s permit without much scrutiny. Suddenly, all local governments would not be allowed to pass rules or regulations that could protect their community; even if the application is the first time they’ve heard about the project and potential threats to local waterways, public safety, or people’s property.
The new pipeline cuts through some of the very important wetlands in Wisconsin; given the new laws, these wetlands don’t have as many protections and Enbridge can impact them. With the Line 61 construction, violations to state environmental regulations resulted in one of the largest settlements for a wetlands and waterways case in Wisconsin history. Enbridge responded by suggesting that pipeline construction is inherently “messy” and blamed bad weather for the numerous violations. These new laws will allow Enbridge to do the same thing resulting in fewer violations, and they won’t have to pay back the state as much when they do them again. One of the wetlands that is no longer protected helps keep your marsh healthy. Suddenly, there are no frogs.
Whose rights are they protecting? Jack’s rights that were given to him when his parents worked hard, bought the land, and then Jack bought it from them? Or the ‘rights’ of a foreign company to take Jack’s land, prevent your community from setting standards that protect you, and destroy the very things that make your property your home?
Call your Representative and Senator and tell them to protect your property rights and vote ‘no’ on these bad bills. Stay tuned to our Facebook and Twitter for updates to when the bills are moving, opportunities to make your voice heard, and other ways to get involved.